Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: How many hon. Members have taken part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

Don Touhig: The armed forces parliamentary scheme is an invaluable opportunity for Members to gain a better understanding of the armed forces, and I certainly commend it to the House. Four Members completed the scheme in 2001, 17 in 2002, 21 in 2003 and 11 in 2004. Twenty-two Members are participating in the scheme's 2005 attachments.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Portsmouth is, of course, the home of the Royal Navy, and I have spoken to serving naval officers and ratings who greatly appreciate the scheme. Their concern is that fewer and fewer MPs have active service experience, and they think that the scheme enables us to understand the lives of servicemen and women and what they have to do. I should like there to be even greater participation: does the Minister think that there are barriers to participation for Members, and how can we overcome them?

Don Touhig: Hon. Members often have time problems with participating in the scheme, which is organised and run by the armed forces, with each service organising visits specific to land, sea and air operations or exercises as appropriate. It is a question of colleagues committing themselves to the time needed, and I again commend the scheme to the House and hope that as many Members as possible will take part.

Bob Spink: I declare that I am a graduate of the Royal Marines scheme. Does the Minister agree that the greatest benefit of the scheme is that it serves better to inform Members on such issues as the importance of up-to-date, quality kit that is in good condition, particularly when the armed forces are on active service in such places as Iraq? Does he take that message home?

Don Touhig: I often say that we sit in this place four days a week making the law on behalf of our country, and that if we do not get out and about to discover the hopes, aspirations and problems that people face, we cannot do that job as thoroughly as we ought to. I agree that learning more about the way in which the armed forces operate and their problems and difficulties, and bringing that information back, is of invaluable help to the Ministry of Defence as it carries out its functions.

Michael Connarty: As a postgraduate member of the scheme, may I emphasise how important it has been to see our troops in action in Afghanistan and in Bosnia and Kosovo recently? The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) about the need for ring-fencing through an arrangement with the House authorities is an important one. There is a danger that people will not be allowed away at times when there is business in the House. I should like, too, to emphasise that it was good to hear the Scottish troops I met—the Argylls in Bosnia—saying, on the ground, that it was a lot of nonsense to attack the concept of having one Scottish regiment.

Don Touhig: If any colleague offers some idea to improve the scheme, we shall obviously listen. We produced a booklet just after the general election, which is available in the Library and which I will happily pass on to colleagues if they have not received copies. We are trying to get as many people to take part as possible, and there is still a waiting list. If people want to join, there is an opportunity to join the scheme. We certainly would not turn away any idea that would help us to benefit Members taking part in the scheme. If we need to have discussions with the House authorities, and if it is appropriate, we shall do so.

David Heath: As another postgraduate member of the scheme who two weeks ago was yomping around Arbroath with 45 Commando, may I pay testament to the value of the scheme and the hospitality of the commandos? May I express sadness at the reported loss of a royal marine in training in Scotland over the weekend? May I also, as I think we engage in a two-way dialogue, pass on a comment from members of 45 Commando that, for an elite force, they are still under-provided with gymnasium facilities and a swimming pool at Arbroath—a matter that I raised a year ago but happily raise on their behalf yet again?

Don Touhig: I share the hon. Gentleman's expression of regret and condolences on the tragedy that he mentioned.
	I hope that colleagues who participate in the scheme and who feel that issues must be brought to the attention of Ministers will feel free to do so. I shall make myself available for a debriefing as often as is necessary. If that impacts on something that the department is doing, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State, as an ex-participant in the scheme, will certainly want to know.

Iraq

Kevan Jones: What assessment he has made of the contribution of UK armed forces to the development of democratic and sustainable political structures in Iraq.

John Reid: United Kingdom armed forces, at the request of the Iraqi Government and under United Nations Security Council resolution 1546, are providing the support, training and security necessary to allow the Iraqi people to build their own democratic future. The success of this weekend's referendum, and the turnout, is the latest example of the contribution we are making together with Iraqi security forces.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important part of the emergence of democracy—such as the successful elections this weekend—is the building of the country's infrastructure? I have visited Iraq three times in the past two years and I have been impressed by the work of the UK force civic teams, and others, who are helping in the reconstruction. What can be done to congratulate those individuals, some of whom put their lives at risk to help ordinary Iraqis, and to publicise more widely the important role that they play in Iraq?

John Reid: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a deep interest in the issue, to the extent of visiting Iraq on several occasions. He has always balanced the pessimistic and despairing commentaries on Iraq by putting the other side of the coin. I hope that he and other close observers will help to publicise the views of Iraqis, from President Talabani and Prime Minister Jafaari down. This weekend, millions of Iraqis, despite the threat of death against them and their families, cast a democratic vote on a constitution that has been designed and manufactured by Iraqis for Iraqis. That was a significant step forward, and I hope that some of our commentators will balance some of the despairing comments with the progress that has been made, despite all the efforts of the terrorists.

Robert Key: Since the end of the cold war, Her Majesty's forces have earned a wonderful reputation for peacekeeping, in Iraq and elsewhere. Has any serious thought been given to the creation of a British gendarmerie, given the disruption to military forces of such peacekeeping and the disruption to civilian constabularies, which provide staff for much of the policing? That idea will not be new to the Secretary of State because we have debated it for 20 years.

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. In the complexity of response to today's complex threats, the civil-military relationship—including security sector reform, policing and judicial systems—is an integral part of solving problems and we contribute to that. For example, some 100 policemen derived from Britain are in Iraq at present. They have trained some 14,000 Iraqi police and, by next year, we hope that they will have trained 25,000. Other forces bring other specialties to the table. We specialise in armed forces, but the Italians have the carabinieri, who have made a contribution similar to that of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and, before that, the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We do contribute, but we are always keen to see how that contribution can be developed.

Geoffrey Robinson: Some of us who have not had the opportunities that other colleagues have had to visit Iraq have nevertheless followed developments with alternating concern and hope. Given the earlier successful elections and now the remarkable turnout—which will probably vote in favour of the constitution—we are more positive about the prospects for a democratic Iraq. What does my right hon. Friend see happening from now on, and what does he think of the chances of achieving a firmly based, strong Iraqi Government who are able to administer law and order without the help of outside troops?

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We should all bear in mind three important points about Iraq, whatever position we took about the intervention there several years ago. The present position is that, first, millions of Iraqi people are showing—by their defiance of terrorism—their commitment to building their own democratic institutions, including even risking death, and they deserve our support. Secondly, our forces are operating, with the rest of the international community, under UN Security Council resolution 1546. We are on the side of the UN at this stage, alongside the multinational forces. Thirdly, the terrorist activity is no longer a reason for us to leave Iraq. Increasingly, it is becoming the most important factor keeping us in Iraq, because the threat from the terrorists is such that the Iraqi security forces—although they are being built up—are still insufficient to counter it. Far from driving us out, the threat and actions of terrorists are one of the main reasons we stay. I merely tell the House today that, according to the latest figures, there are, for the first time, more than 200,000 members of the Iraqi security forces, trained and capable. They are increasingly taking the lead, and we will continue to train them until the conditions are right for us to withdraw.

Gregory Campbell: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the courage of the people of Iraq and to the courage and dedication of our armed personnel serving in Iraq. Will he assure me and the people of Northern Ireland that he will bear in mind in particular the courage and dedication of members of the Royal Irish Regiment when he is considering the representations that my colleagues and I made to him recently about the regiment's future?

John Reid: Yes, I will bear that in mind. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I met the leader of his party and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party to discuss the matter. I told them that the Armed Forces Minister, who is dealing with the details of the case, and I will try to ensure that whatever changes arise from the peace process in Northern Ireland, those who have served their country during some very difficult decades will be treated with dignity and honour as the role that they have played becomes less relevant and less material to today's circumstances.

David Winnick: As someone who continually criticised the shameful abuse of Iraqi prisoners, particularly by the United States, I ask whether it is not unfortunate that a good number of Members who opposed the war, as they had every right to do, have not, as far as I know, in any way criticised the way in which, day after day, innocent Iraqis are being murdered by the terrorists, including a 27-year-old female bank clerk who was murdered simply because she was considered a collaborator for working in her job, which she did because she wanted to help her mother have an operation on her leg. Is not that outright murderous fascism, and should not all Members denounce such murder and criminality at every opportunity?

John Reid: Yes, indeed. Almost all Members are of the same view. There can be no justification for actions that destroy the lives of innocent Muslim children, of the 200 ordinary working-class Shi'a Muslims who were murdered some weeks ago, of the four Sunni representatives who tried to engage in politics in the constitutional convention and were murdered, and of men and women registering for votes. Surely there are very few in this House who would try to justify that action, because whatever view we took about the original intervention in Iraq, the position is now clear: we are either on the side of the Iraqi democrats, the United Nations and our troops, or we are on the side of the terrorists. I salute the courage and the indefatigability of today's Iraqi democrats.

Michael Ancram: I join the Secretary of State in welcoming the apparent success of the vote on the constitution over the weekend, and I warmly congratulate our troops on their part in the sensitive development of democratic and sustainable political structures in Iraq. The key question now is how long they will continue to be required to do that. Rather surprisingly, the Foreign Secretary last week seemed to suggest five to 10 years. Of course, if the sovereign Government of Iraq asked us to leave, we would leave, but can the Secretary of State give the House a categorical assurance that in any other circumstances, after due consultation with the Iraqi Government and our allies, the decision as to when we have fulfilled our responsibilities and our troops come home will be taken by the British Government, and by the British Government alone?

John Reid: The British Government will always have the sovereign right to make that decision, and we will do so, but we have entered into obligations, and no British Government lightly abandons obligations seriously entered into. Those obligations, which we entered into with the democratically elected transitional Government in Iraq, and which we will discuss with them in December, mean that we will stay there until the conditions are right, first, for us to hand over the lead to the Iraqi security forces and then eventually to withdraw. Those conditions are plain. The criteria on which our judgment will be based include the Iraqi security forces' ability gradually to take the lead; the control of central and local and government in order to compete with the threat against them; and the level of the threat. Ultimately, the choice will be for the British people and the British Government, but we will act in consultation with the Iraqis, as we agreed.

Michael Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman and I both know that dialogue always has an important part to play in the development of democratic and political structures, but is there any truth in the rumours and reports that representatives of the coalition have opened, or are seeking to open, channels of communication with certain of the insurgents; and if so, to what purpose?

John Reid: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that certain irreconcilable elements in Iraq are irreconcilably wedded to violence, including imported jihadists and elements of the former regime of the fascist Ba'ath party. Others may be tempted to engage in violence because they think that economic progress is not sufficient, or that they have been deprived of political power and so on. To the latter elements, which are not irreconcilable, we would say that, as long as they engage in violence, we will meet that violence with the force necessary to curtail and defeat it, but that if they wish to adopt the political path, we hope that the Government and the majority Shi'a population will reach out their hand to those elements, especially if they are members of the Sunni minority. In other words, as elsewhere, if people are wedded to terrorism, they will be met with the full force of our military power; if they choose the route of democracy and dialogue, we will encourage them.

Michael Clapham: Does my right hon. Friend feel that the Iraqi constitution puts in place integrity structures that are necessary and sufficient to ensure a sustainable democracy? If so, will he say why he feels that the Sunnis—even though they participated in the voting, which is a good thing—may not have voted for the constitution?

John Reid: I can think of no constitutional settlement that has commanded unanimity in any country. First, about 155 of the 157 articles of the constitution had widespread agreement. Secondly, in a recent gesture, the Sunnis were told that the other elements could be discussed again, even after the election of the Government in December. Thirdly, the rapidity with which three groups—Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd—have come together after decades in which members of the majority Shi'a and Kurd populations were massacred in their hundreds of thousands by Saddam Hussein, is a miracle. As I have said before at the Dispatch Box, a comparison between the two years it has taken to bring together the ethnic and regional parties in Iraq and the 800 years it has taken the four nations of the United Kingdom to resolve our constitutional issues illustrates how far we have come in Iraq, despite all the difficulties.

Kosovo

John Randall: If he will make a statement on the deployment of troops in Kosovo.

Adam Ingram: The United Kingdom contribution to the NATO KFOR mission of about 200 troops provides a highly effective force able to deploy across the whole of Kosovo. In addition, about 70 Ministry of Defence police officers are stationed in Kosovo, working with the United Nations interim administrative mission and the Kosovo police service on a wide range of international policing tasks.

John Randall: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he comment on reports that units are being deployed in Kosovo without some of their crucial experts, such as forward air controllers, because of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Adam Ingram: No. We have a highly effective support mission in Kosovo and we shall always ensure that the equipment required for the task at hand is made available. Equipment can at all times be moved from one theatre to another, depending on need and demand, and such decisions are based on military assessment.
	The hon. Gentleman should understand that, in the first instance, the military judgment will determine advice to Ministers. If the risk is too great, another judgment will have to be taken. That will be the case in Kosovo, as elsewhere.

Paul Flynn: Has not the achievement of our forces in Kosovo and elsewhere in Europe, as well as in Africa, in peacekeeping been our military's supreme achievement of recent years, ensuring fewer deaths of civilians, especially women and children? Is not that the way forward for our military spending—we probably have the best peacekeeping record of any armed force in the world—rather than one that is vested in the questionable cause of a new nuclear weapon?

Adam Ingram: I think that my hon. Friend does not quite understand why we are so good at peacekeeping. We are also very good at all the other elements in which we involve our armed forces, not least of which is war fighting. We are among a few nations that trade across the spectrum. That means that our people move from one type of activity to another. We are exceptionally good at peacekeeping but we are also extremely good at peacemaking and war fighting.

Afghanistan

Andrew Rosindell: if he will make a statement on the security situation in Afghanistan.

John Reid: The security situation in Afghanistan is broadly stable, if sometimes, and in some places, fragile. Despite an upsurge in violence preceding the 18 September National Assembly elections, as anticipated, polling day was not significantly disrupted and many millions of Afghans were able to exercise their democratic will.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. If, as I understand it, additional troops are to be sent to Afghanistan—possibly up to another 4,000—can he tell us how much of the overseas deployment budget will remain for 2005–06?

John Reid: I cannot do so off the top of my head. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the additional budget for operational deployment does not come from within the basic budget of the MOD. Operations are always a matter for discussion with the Treasury. Part of the ongoing discussions about the configuration of any force that would go into, for example, Helmand in southern Afghanistan would be subject to negotiations with our allies and negotiations within Government to ascertain how much money is affordable for which objectives.

Chris Bryant: As my right hon. Friend will know, 95 per cent. of the heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan. British troops have played an important role in trying to ensure that the opium trade dies. Recently, British troops in Bosnia found large amounts of heroin that had come from Afghanistan. How are we ensuring that we follow the whole of the trade—not only the growing of the opium but its passage to the United Kingdom—to ensure that it stops?

John Reid: My hon. Friend is right. There has been much discussion about an ethical foreign policy and a self-interested foreign policy. Foreign policy includes both those elements. We are in Afghanistan to ensure that terrorists do not have an unviable state to use as a launch platform for attacks against the west. It is in our interests to ensure that that is in the interests of the Afghans as well.
	It is also in our direct interests to stem the trade in opium. As my hon. Friend says, 90 per cent. of the heroin on our streets derives from Afghanistan. I can tell him that I recently discussed this matter with colleagues in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan, including Presidents Karzai and Musharraf. It is of great interest to them as well as to us that the trade is stopped.

James Arbuthnot: As always, we can be extremely proud of the work of our troops in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq, in circumstances of great difficulty and danger. It is sad to hear that we lost a Harrier recently and that another one was damaged. Can the Secretary of State tell us what protection those Harriers had and what lessons we have learned?

John Reid: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, an inquiry is under way. It is always sad when the enemy—in this case, terrorists—are successful, and we will look at what lessons can be learned and whether greater protection can be given to what is, as he knows, a vital asset. I do not want to pre-empt the inquiry by giving opinions at this stage, so I hope that he accepts that I would rather wait until it has been concluded.

Dari Taylor: The deployment of British armed forces is central to achieving a secure Afghanistan, but what are the Government doing to ensure the integration of economic, social and financial developments, as they are significant if the future of Afghanistan is to be secure?

John Reid: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If we are to deny the terrorists the Trojan horse of a failed state that could be used to attack us in the west, as elsewhere, it is not sufficient to defeat them or the Taliban temporarily. We have to build a viable and sustainable state in Afghanistan, and the people who can do so are the Afghans themselves, with our support. Military power is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient to defeat terrorism in the long term, so humanitarian aid, economic developments, judicial systems and the extension of true and uncorrupted political control beyond Kabul are essential additions to military power. We will have that very much in mind when we go into Helmand. If we manage to defeat the drug barons we must make sure that farmers who are dependent on the opium crop have alternative livelihoods. That is a perfect practical example of how military power without the accompanying civil and economic development will not achieve our ends.

Michael Moore: There was welcome progress in Afghanistan at the recent elections, but the security situation has become more perilous ahead of the extension of NATO's ISAF role. If the Secretary of State cannot yet confirm the number of British troops to be deployed, can he clarify whether counter-insurgency and peacekeeping roles are to be merged under NATO? If not, how close will the synergies be? Is it clear yet that the United States will supply additional troops to support the core peacekeeping responsibilities under ISAF?

John Reid: The short answer is that our direction in Afghanistan consists of three elements on the military side. First, we have already committed ourselves to taking the lead in the allied rapid reaction corps headquarters from May next year. Secondly, in principle, we want to extend the ISAF operation from the north and the west down to the south. We will go into Helmand province with our colleagues, and many nations wish to assist us. We have not finally decided the numbers, but I shall inform the hon. Gentleman and the House when we have done so. Thirdly, we want very close co-operation indeed between our operation and the Americans. It is not a complete merger for various reasons, but we want the closest possible synergy because, as I said, we cannot defeat terrorism by military means alone. Stabilisation and reconstruction are also needed, which is what ISAF and NATO, with ourselves in the lead, will undertake.

Michael Ancram: Following that answer, if the NATO task is to be extended into counter-insurgency, which is inevitable if we move into the south as the Secretary of State described, is it not essential that our troops work under a single command? Can he therefore confirm categorically that any further attempts by others such as the French to create a split command between Operation Enduring Freedom in counter-insurgency and NATO in peacekeeping will be strongly resisted?

John Reid: What is being suggested by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, in order to incorporate the greater synergy that I mentioned, is not a single chain of command. It is two potential chains of command, headed by one person who is double-hatted. It is possible to achieve far greater synergy without a single chain of command. How far we go in that direction is a matter for diplomatic and political discussion between all the allies, including the United States. That process is under way.

Iraq

Theresa Villiers: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq.

Bernard Jenkin: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq.

John Reid: We are in Iraq under a United Nations mandate to help Iraq build democratic institutions, its own security forces and economic and social infrastructures. The terrorists are trying to destroy all three. Despite terrorist attacks, steady progress is being made in all three areas. The success of the weekend's referendum is the latest example of this progress.

Theresa Villiers: Over the past few weeks the Government have given conflicting signals about whether any of the weapons being used by Iraqi insurgents originated in Iran. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen evidence that any weapons being used by Iraqi insurgents were designed or manufactured in Iran? If so, what protest is he making to the Iranian Government about the involvement of their country in Iraq?

John Reid: I am not sure that I accept the hon. Lady's premise that there have been conflicting signals. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have all said the same thing, and I am glad that the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, publicly declared last night that she accepted what we were saying. The Prime Minister confirmed last week that new explosive devices have been used not only against British troops, but elsewhere in Iraq. The nature of those devices leads us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah. At this time, however, we cannot be certain of the precise destination to which that would take us. We continue to investigate the matter, but in the meantime we have made plain our views to the Iranian Government. We have presented evidence to the Iranians that, in our judgment, clearly links the improvised explosive devices that have been used against British and other troops, mainly in the south of Iraq, to Lebanese Hezbollah and to Iran. We hope that the publicly declared position of the Iranian Government will be followed through, because we all know that there cannot be a parallel track in this matter. Everyone should be absolutely committed to assisting the democratic process in Iraq. I hope that will be the outcome of the discussion.

Bernard Jenkin: A few moments ago the Secretary of State said that 200,000 members of the Iraqi armed forces were now trained. Will he comment on the remarks of General George Casey, the commander general of the multinational force in Iraq, when he gave evidence at the end of last month to the Senate armed services committee? He told the committee that only one in a hundred of the battalions is capable of operating independently. That represents two fewer than in June. Why is that? Is it also related to the fact that Iranian-backed Shi'a insurgents have infiltrated much of the Iraqi security services? How are we to make progress, as we all want to do, if we seem to be going backwards?

John Reid: Yes, I can explain General Casey's comments, which have been taken slightly out of context. General Casey said, and General Myers as well, I think, that a very limited number—one or three has been mentioned on various occasions—of Iraqi battalions are capable of acting fully independently and autonomously. I have said that we now have 200,000-plus members of the Iraqi security forces—police as well as army—who are trained and capable of taking part in counter-terrorist operations. Those very brave people are putting their lives at risk. Indeed, Iraqi forces are playing a part or a lead part in the majority of operations. That is not to say that in command and control, and in intelligence in other ways, they are at the height of being able to act completely independently and autonomously. Our objective is to increase the number of forces who can do that.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that on Saturday the Iranian ambassador made a very clear statement that his Government played no part whatsoever in the explosions in southern Iraq or in attacks on British forces? If the Defence Secretary has evidence, will he publish it? Does he agree that Condoleezza Rice and others who made statements over the weekend, which were, to some degree, of aggression towards Iran, would do better to keep quiet? Will he use this opportunity to say that there are no plans whatsoever to mount an attack on Iran?

John Reid: The House's primary concern should be how to protect our soldiers. They are British citizens—British servicemen and women—and if we think that there is any evidence that they have been murdered or mutilated by devices that originate in sources that may be connected to Iranian elements, it is not an option for us to raise this issue but an obligation of Government, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do so.

Ann Winterton: In view of the withdrawal from service of the Scorpion and Sabre vehicle variants, what is the position of the remaining CVR(T)—combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked)—fleet concerning maintenance, upgrading and, in particular, replacement by other vehicles in future to fulfil the security role in Iraq and elsewhere?

John Reid: As the hon. Lady may know, discussions are taking place to investigate the future nature of our armoured vehicles under a project called FRES—future rapid effects system. Those discussions still have some way to go, not least because in Europe, while there is a demand for around 10,000 such armoured vehicles, there are already 33 different projects to choose from; whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage is an open question. The biggest requirement of the Army on the horizon is future armoured vehicle procurement.

Angus Robertson: The Ministry of Defence has chosen to court-martial Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, who, like many others, questioned the legality of the Iraq war. He is a decorated officer based at RAF Kinloss in my constituency. Today's editorial in the Labour party-supporting Daily Record says:
	"Politicians should not expect servicemen to follow every order if it is manifestly wrong."
	Is that correct?

John Reid: One of the principles in this country is that politicians should not get involved in legal cases, and I will not.

Nicholas Soames: Does the Secretary of State agree that our armed forces— the young men and women of all three services—in Iraq have done a truly remarkable job? I hope that they know how much they are appreciated and admired in this House. Does he also agree that one of the limiting factors in their success on the ground is the problem of the lack of real-time intelligence? Will he assure the House in whatever way he can that there are in Iraq sufficient Arabic speakers and members of the intelligence agencies relevant to these operations to enable the work to be properly done?

John Reid: I believe that there are sufficient. However, as the hon. Gentleman has held a similar position to mine, he will expect me to say that I would always like more, because the difficulties of making informed choices are in many cases dependent not only on human intelligence but on a real understanding of what is going on in civil and social society. That is why I stress that although there are international terrorists there, and although this is part of the global combating of international terrorism, the specific characteristics of Iraqi society must be paramount in our consideration, including reaching out to those who may be drifting into violence but may also be open to involvement in the political process. I think that that degree of sophistication is necessary. As the hon. Gentleman implies, it depends on an understanding of information in real time. Some of that is human intelligence and some may be technical. We continue to explore the need for more advanced technical assistance and real-time intelligence.

Royal Naval Equipment

Daniel Kawczynski: What progress has been made in securing repatriation of the Royal Navy's equipment seized by Iranian forces in the Shatt-al-Arab.

John Reid: We continue to press the Iranian Government for the return of the Royal Navy boats and equipment seized by Iranian forces in the Shatt-al-Arab in June 2004.

Daniel Kawczynski: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer but I find it unacceptable that the Iranian Government have purloined our equipment. Is he prepared to work with the Foreign Secretary to put pressure on Iran via the United Nations on the matter? As he knows, our soldiers strayed across the Shatt-al-Arab and did not enter Iranian territory. They were coerced on to the Iranian side of the Shatt-al-Arab. The Iranian Government have committed an illegal act.

John Reid: I can do no better than agree with the hon. Gentleman, not least because we have objective evidence for what he says. The global positioning system data downloaded from the boats' navigational equipment—and shared by both sides—support the British servicemen's account that they were intercepted in the middle of the waterway and taken to the Iranian side. We continue to make every conceivable overture and protest through the Foreign Secretary. However, I am prepared to bring the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Foreign Secretary's attention because I am sure that they represent the House's view.

Andrew Miller: Although I accept my right hon. Friend's explanation, the Iranians take a different view of the definition of the boundary between Iraq and Iran in the area that we are considering. That is partly because of a moving sandbank, which the Iranians choose to use as a definition instead of a point on land. Would not it make sense if, in the longer term, we tried to encourage the parties to negotiate a long-standing treaty to help prevent such problems from recurring? The matter is serious and has implications for some oil-related issues.

John Reid: Without prejudice and without conceding anything on the question of our boats, which, apart from anything else, are valued at approximately £130,000, but also involve a principle, it would be beneficial for all parties if we could get agreement. Given my hon. Friend's minute knowledge of the sandbanks and the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, courtesy of many visits through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, perhaps he could assist in that process.

Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary) Project

Philip Davies: If he will make a statement on the progress of the landing ships dock (auxiliary) project.

Adam Ingram: Of the four landing ships dock (auxiliary) vessels, Mounts Bay, the first ship built by BAE Systems in Glasgow, completed her initial sea trials in September, which proved the ship's overall design and performance. Build and testing continues on the second and third ships, Largs Bay and Cardigan Bay. The final ship, Lyme Bay, was floated by Swan Hunter into the River Tyne in early September and was officially named at a ceremony in Newcastle on 14 October.

Philip Davies: I thank the Minister for that reply. The Swan Hunter contract was originally for £148 million and the most recent estimated cost is £235 million. Is there any advance on that?

Adam Ingram: I hesitate to wave any bits of paper in front of the hon. Gentleman in case we get into an altercation afterwards. All that he has done is recite figures that we have already reported to the House in previous answers. To ensure the delivery of the ships from Swan Hunter, we amended the contract arrangements. It is important that we get those ships.

Nick Brown: Last Friday was a proud day for Tyneside, its shipbuilding community and, indeed, the Royal Navy. We were able to view the naming ceremony for the latest platform dock vessel from its sister ship. It was a unique occasion in my experience. However, the work has now run out. May I ask the Secretary of State, through the Minister, if he will agree to meet me and representatives of the work force to discuss the future for Swan Hunter?

Adam Ingram: The answer is yes. We are always ready to discuss matters of importance with hon. Members. We are in the process of developing our defence industrial strategy, and I am sure that there can be useful discussions on the matter between my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Gerald Howarth: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, may I associate the Conservative Front Bench with the tributes that have been paid to the armed forces parliamentary scheme? As a member of the scheme serving with the Royal Air Force, I know the value of it and I should like to pay tribute to Sir Neil Thorne and to Ministers for providing us with access to Ministry establishments.
	We need to understand that the contract in question was for four ships based on an existing Dutch design. It should therefore have been able to demonstrate the merits of the much-vaunted smart acquisition policy. Instead, it has been a scandal. The Minister's Department admitted that the cost of the two Swan Hunter ships had, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, overrun by £87 million— a massive 60 per cent.—only after pressure from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers). The in-service date has slipped by three years. Who is to blame for this shambles? Is it the Department or Swan Hunter? Will the BAE Systems vessels commence their sea trials as soon as they are ready, or will they be held back to allow Swan Hunter to go first?

Adam Ingram: Let me echo the hon. Gentleman's kind words about the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I was one of its early graduates, and I pay tribute to all who have participated in it. I hope that many more will do so. The scheme gives us an insight into the armed forces, but it does not give the hon. Gentleman an insight into matters of procurement. He claims that the cost increase was announced only as a result of pressure from him and the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), but that is not the case at all. Indeed, it was announced in the local area that that had happened, and extensive explanations have been given through parliamentary questions. Of course it is important that we deliver on these ships, but it is also important to understand that the hon. Member for Gosport—who is not in his place today—is campaigning for the closure of Swan Hunter. I wonder whether that is also the position taken by the Conservative Front Bench.

Education Projects (Nottingham, North)

Graham Allen: What education projects his Department has undertaken in Nottingham, North.

Don Touhig: My hon. Friend will know that the Ministry of Defence set up the Skill Force organisation, which has been working in Nottingham since September 2001. The team is currently operating in five Nottingham schools, including one in my hon. Friend's constituency, teaching approximately 300 pupils.

Graham Allen: Does my hon. Friend agree that people who have given a lifetime of service in the armed forces as trained and highly qualified instructors might be forgiven for wanting to put their feet up and retire gracefully? However, a large number of former instructors in the armed forces work very hard in the public service under the auspices of Skill Force. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to commend on behalf of everyone in the House the work that is being done in my constituency, where high calibre results are being achieved? Will he also ensure that we put on record our thanks to those people who are laying the foundations for two very successful academies in my constituency? Those people could have retired gracefully but are still making the effort to put something back into their community.

Don Touhig: Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I attended the event organised by Skill Force in the Palace of Westminster in July. I am well aware of the admirable work done by the Skill Force team in Nottingham as well as by the other 22 teams around the country. I pay tribute to the enduring commitment of the men who have served in our forces and—at a time when they might, as my hon. Friend says, put their feet up—are still willing to give up their time to improve the educational opportunities of young people. Skill Force is a wonderful example to all of us of what can be done by using the skills of those who have retired but are still able to make an important contribution. I commend them greatly for all that they do.

Patrick Mercer: I am delighted that Skill Force is having such success in Nottingham, but why is the Ministry of Defence giving it such a low profile in terms of recruitment in my Nottinghamshire constituency? The number of young men and women whom we provide for the three services is minimal. May I suggest that the recruiting crisis could be addressed much more effectively through more proactive measures?

Don Touhig: I am willing to consider any suggestion from any Member if it enables us to raise the profile of Skill Force and ensure that more people participate. If the hon. Gentleman drops me a note, I shall make certain that we follow it up and that he receives a reply.

RAF Leeming

Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the future of RAF Leeming.

Adam Ingram: The hon. Member is aware that the future of RAF Leeming is being considered as part of the defence airfield review.

Anne McIntosh: I seem to hear more about the future of RAF Leeming at the local hairdresser than on the Floor of the House. When I asked the same question in March 2005, I was told that we were waiting for the results of the defence airfield review. When might we have those results, and what is the future of RAF Leeming? Are we going to get the joint combat aircraft or not?

Adam Ingram: I would have expected the hon. Lady to understand that it is better to get something right than to do it quickly. The review is a very comprehensive analysis of over 50 airfields, and it is not easy to reach a conclusion on what is the best balance.
	The hon. Lady knows that RAF Leeming has a future. A number of strands of work beyond the airfield review could benefit RAF Leeming. We are also considering where to base the joint combat aircraft: that involves five airfields. Those matters will be reported on soon. We hope to have completed the process by the end of the year, but we are talking about a complex process that involves moving many thousands of people around and may affect thousands of jobs and local communities. We must ensure that the airfields that are retained are the best placed and best resourced to meet the demands of the RAF in the decades ahead.

Julian Lewis: The Minister says that it is better to make a decision slowly and get it right, but a decision that was made quickly and was probably wrong was the decision to eliminate elementary flying training from university air squadrons. What impact will that have on the future of bases such as RAF Leeming, given that in the past 60 per cent. of RAF pilots have come to the RAF via the university air squadrons?

Adam Ingram: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the RAF has considered the issue. The one thing that the RAF will not want to do is take away competencies at a time when recruiting to all three services could prove more difficult because of the strength of the economy and other factors. The decision was not made lightly or, indeed, wrongly. The aim was to ensure that those who have been through the process—a total of 1,000, I think—are given the right training at the right time.
	The decision was based on a military assessment, an RAF assessment. The RAF certainly would not want to cut off an essential part of its human resource stream. By changing the arrangements we will raise the quality of those who go through the process, and they will receive elementary training once they have graduated.

Service Accommodation

David Kidney: What steps he is taking to improve the standards of accommodation for service personnel at UK military bases.

Don Touhig: Through new building and upgrade programmes, we plan to achieve sustained improvement of single living accommodation, providing trained personnel with well-equipped single rooms with en-suite facilities. On current plans, over 33,500 such rooms will have been provided in the UK by April 2009. We also have projects under way to modernise our service families' accommodation.

David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the question of spending on accommodation for our service personnel is as important as the debate about spending on weapons procurement, especially when we are discussing rates of recruitment and retention? Will he say a little more about the priority that he is giving to raising standards of accommodation for service personnel, particularly those who have to live on military bases?

Don Touhig: My mission statement is simple and has been endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence: we value servicemen and women and their families and we will take every practical step to demonstrate that. One clear way of demonstrating how much we value them is by improving the quality of their accommodation. Attitude surveys show that that is important for service morale and will make an important contribution to recruitment and retention. We have an extensive programme of investment in servicemen's and family accommodation. One of my priorities is to see whether we can accelerate that while I occupy this office.

Avian Influenza

Steve Webb: May I ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans her Department has made to tackle an influenza pandemic?

Patricia Hewitt: The Government take the risk of a flu pandemic very seriously indeed. Since 1997, we have had a plan for a flu pandemic, which because of the increasing global risk and awareness, we have substantially revised. An updated version was issued in March this year outlining the actions that Government and other authorities are taking. We are working across all Government Departments and sectors and are revising the plan to take into account comments received. An updated version will be published on Thursday this week.
	As the chief medical officer has stated:
	"Most experts believe that it is not a question of whether there will be another severe influenza pandemic, but when."
	We take that threat very seriously. The Government have been taking increasing action, particularly over the past 12 months, to prepare for such a pandemic.
	We are fortunate in having some of the best scientific and medical experts in the world leading our work on pandemic preparations. The World Health Organisation believes the United Kingdom to be one of the best prepared countries in the world. None the less, we will continue to step up our planning and take proportionate actions based on the best available evidence to reduce the impact of a pandemic in our country.
	It is not possible, of course, to predict with confidence when the next influenza pandemic may happen. The H5N1 virus that is circulating in poultry in south-east Asia and in other regions, including Turkey, is presenting a huge challenge for animal health. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking appropriate steps to reduce the risks of avian flu spreading to birds here.
	H5N1 has caused about 60 deaths in humans to date. The virus has so far affected only people directly working with infected birds. It is not readily transmitted from person to person, which is, of course, the key characteristic of a pandemic virus. None the less, in May this year, the WHO stated that the virus
	"poses a continuing and potentially growing pandemic threat."
	A human influenza pandemic could have serious implications for the UK. As the chief medical officer explained publicly yesterday, a flu pandemic could affect around 25 per cent. of the UK population. We estimate that there could be at least 50,000 deaths as a result of the pandemic, compared with around 12,000 flu-related deaths every year, and it could be significantly more.
	The NHS is well used to planning for and responding to emergencies, but every country will face enormous pressures in the event of a flu pandemic. In order to help the NHS, we have published operational guidance on contingency planning and we are funding exercises that will test NHS plans locally and those of other stakeholders.
	We are backing up the contingency plans with practical action. Antivirals will provide the first form of defence against pandemic flu. We have ordered over 14.5 million treatment courses of Tamiflu to treat people who may fall ill. This month, we will have 2.5 million treatment courses. By the end of March, we will have nearly 7.5 million and the full stockpile will be complete by September 2006. We have, of course, issued guidance to inform local NHS planning for the distribution and storage of those medicines.
	The other medical intervention that we are pursuing is vaccination, which will offer the best form of protection against pandemic flu, but a vaccine cannot be manufactured until the exact flu strain is known, so it will take around four to six months until the first stocks of an appropriate vaccine become available. We are working closely with the manufacturers, other countries, the European Commission and the World Health Organisation to ensure that a vaccine can be developed as quickly as possible once a pandemic flu strain emerges. That will allow us to put arrangements in place to ensure production of vaccine for the UK population. As a further precautionary measure, however, we have also ordered between 2 million and 3 million doses of an H5N1 vaccine, delivery of which will commence early next year.
	One of the cornerstones of preparedness for pandemic flu is research. The Medical Research Council is actively involved and its chief executive will be going to south-east Asia in the next few days to see how the MRC can most usefully contribute. The Department is working closely with the Health Protection Agency to have in place a research strategy on vaccines and surveillance. We are developing clinical management guidelines with the Health Protection Agency and the British Thoracic Society to help inform management of patients who are suffering from pandemic flu. We are working with the HPA to finalise infection control guidelines that will provide valuable advice on how to reduce the risk of spread of the virus.
	Good communication with the public and with health professionals will be absolutely crucial both before and, of course, during any pandemic. We have seen recently that some of the messages in the media about avian flu, pandemic flu and seasonal flu can be confusing. We want to try to ensure that the public are provided with clear and accurate information about pandemic flu and its possible consequences. We have already carried out extensive testing with the public of communication materials that would be used in the event of a pandemic.
	During the summer, the chief medical officer alerted all doctors to the guidance and advice that is available on the Department of Health and the HPA websites. This month we will send packs of information, including that already available on the websites, to GPs and other primary care professionals. We are taking a leading role internationally in discussions on avian and pandemic influenza and, in the UK's role as EU presidency, I have made this a major item for our discussion at the EU Health Ministers' informal meeting later this week.
	There is widespread public concern about the risk of pandemic flu. We need accurate information and the media have an important role to play. There is no direct threat to members of the public in the UK from the current outbreaks of avian flu elsewhere in the world. This is a bird disease. There is no reason for people to stop eating poultry. Nevertheless, it is very important for protection against seasonal flu that people aged over 65 and other at-risk groups who are recommended to have vaccination should make sure that they receive their vaccinations as normal.
	We will of course continue to review and step up our preparations so that as far as any country can be fully prepared against the risks of pandemic flu, we in the UK will be prepared.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that helpful reply. Will she confirm that the chief medical officer's estimate of 50,000 fatalities is based on the central assumption that 14 million men, women and children will contract flu and show symptoms of it? If so, what range of possibilities is she looking at, because presumably her Department is also preparing for worst-case scenarios? Will she give us a range of the outcomes that she is considering?
	The Secretary of State has just told us that 2.5 million doses of antiviral have been stockpiled. Will she say something about prioritisation? In the event of a pandemic affecting 14 million people— the Government's number—before a stockpile for 14 million has been built up, who will get the antivirals first? Will some people get antivirals on a prophylactic basis—in advance—and which people will miss out? Given the problems we have in the country when there is a shortage of fuel, is the Secretary of State confident that she has robust plans in place for a situation where 14 million people have the symptoms of an illness that is proving fatal to tens of thousands and there is a substantial shortage of antivirals? What measures are in place to deal with that scenario?
	What plans does she have to stockpile other antivirals such as Relenza in the event that new strains develop resistance to Tamiflu? Will she confirm that she is estimating about 1,500 admissions to hospital for every 1 million of population? What plans does she have to make sure that the NHS has sufficient capacity to deal with that level of impact?
	The Secretary of State's 2005 operational framework says that every primary care trust should have in place a contingency plan for tackling a pandemic. How many PCTs have such a plan in place now? Does she believe that her plan to reorganise PCTs and health authorities will help or hinder their preparedness to tackle a pandemic, and will she postpone that reorganisation if it gets in the way?
	Finally, I turn to the Health Protection Agency's estimate, given in its own documentation, that it will take six to eight months to develop a vaccine following first identification of a human strain of the virus. Why has the Secretary of State now given a shorter estimate, and what is she doing to bring down the lead time on the production of a vaccine?

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those questions. We, the chief medical officer and our advisers have been looking at various scenarios, and they of course include a range of factors concerning the number of people who might be infected, and the consequences thereof. We will update them in the updated contingency plan to which I referred in my statement.
	On ordering and stockpiling antivirals, we are one of the best prepared countries in the world. Of course, they will not prevent somebody from getting pandemic flu, but they will undoubtedly help to moderate its severity and therefore to save lives. We already have enough antivirals in stock to treat health care workers who might be affected. Depending on the time at which a pandemic takes place and on its severity, we may need to take further steps to prioritise their availability, but it would be premature to try to take such decisions at this point. Our advisers are looking at this issue, but until we know the nature of the pandemic and who is most at risk from it, it would be foolish to try to make hard and fast decisions about priorities.
	We are of course planning for the real risk of a very significant increase in the number of hospital admissions, and we are looking at how best we can deal with that in terms of bed and staff availability. My understanding is that all health authorities and PCTs have plans in place, and we are monitoring and checking those plans. In addition, through the exercises to which I referred—exercises that have been so important in ensuring that the NHS was ready to deal with other eventualities, including 7 July—we will be able to test in a simulation the real readiness of different parts of the service.
	On the availability of a new vaccine tailored to the specific strain of any pandemic flu, our estimate is indeed four to six months. We have been working very closely with the industry in particular to see whether it is possible further to reduce the time scale for identifying the flu strain and then creating and manufacturing the seed stock for the vaccine. Longer-term research is going on, in which the United Kingdom is playing a leading role, to try to find completely different ways of manufacturing vaccine, but I doubt whether they will come to fruition in the very near future. However, they will be enormously important in longer-term protection.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) for asking this question. As he, you and the House know, Mr. Speaker, we hope to have a more substantive opportunity to debate these matters this Wednesday, during Opposition Supply time. Pending that, I will, if I may, ask the Secretary of State a few questions.
	The right hon. Lady says that we are well advanced in the preparation of a stockpile of antiviral drugs. Given that I asked precisely such a question about contingency planning and the stockpiling of drugs on 21 June 2004, and given that the French Government published their preparedness plan on 13 October 2004 and then purchased their stockpile of antiviral drugs, why was it not until I asked further such questions in February of this year that the Government published a plan—on 1 March—and ordered their stockpile, which, as the Secretary of State told us, will not be fully in place until September 2006? As the Secretary of State knows, we do not know when a pandemic flu outbreak may occur.
	The Secretary of State did not answer a question about the use of antiviral drugs. The pandemic contingency plan contemplates very limited use of Tamiflu or other antiviral drugs for post-exposure prophylaxis. Health care workers or the immediate family of someone who contracts pandemic flu should be given the drugs within 24 hours in order to offset their likelihood of developing the infection, having severe symptoms or passing it on to others. Major use of post- exposure prophylaxis could have a significant benefit in containing outbreaks and preventing spread among the population. At the moment, however, the Government are proposing to purchase essentially for treatment rather than prevention. Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government will consider post-exposure prophylaxis more widely and comment on the implications for additional stockpiles of antiviral drugs?
	What does the Secretary of State intend the supply of generic H5N1 vaccine to be used for next spring? Is it to be used for immunisation, which would be perfectly logical for the limited number of workers potentially exposed to birds that could be acquiring avian flu as a result of migration? Although work is in hand on vaccine preparation, have the Government contemplated the option of contracting and tendering for an advance purchase agreement? As the Secretary of State knows, the French Government have sought to acquire 40 million doses of vaccine—predominantly of a targeted pandemic flu vaccine when it can be identified—as part of the process supported by the World Health Organisation of increasing the availability of vaccine manufacture.
	Will the Secretary of State tell us what plans she has for the acquisition of face masks, gloves and other surgical equipment? A UK company recently won a contract to supply a large range of disposable medical products to Australia. The Australian stockpile of gloves, face masks and the like will be in place by December, following a tender in May and June. To the best of my knowledge, our Government have not tendered for any such stockpile, or indeed any supplies beyond their normal acquisition for NHS purposes.
	On the wider question of NHS preparedness, much more needs to be said, and I hope that we will have a chance to say it on Wednesday. However, I shall put my final question for today. Professor David Menon, professor of anaesthesia at Addenbrookes hospital in my constituency, recently published an article in Anaesthesia. The summary states:
	"The UK Influenza Pandemic Contingency Plan does not consider the impact of a pandemic on critical care services . . . Current critical care bed capacity would be unable to cope with the increased demand provided by an influenza pandemic. Proper contingency planning is essential."
	Will the Secretary of State confirm whether Thursday's updated contingency plan will include that sort of essential planning?

Patricia Hewitt: First, let me stress that we are indeed well advanced in our planning. Not only have we had an outline plan in place since 1997, we have stepped up planning and preparation over the last 12 months. As the hon. Gentleman would find out if he checked with the World Health Organisation, we are one of the top three countries in the world—the other two being Australia and France—in respect of our general preparations and our stockpiling of Tamiflu. Different countries are taking different approaches to their preparations and I am told by the chief medical officer—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) to be quiet.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
	As I was saying, different countries take different approaches to the problem. I have been advised by the chief medical officer that the stockpile of Tamiflu in France is in powder form, whereas we prefer to stockpile ours in the form of capsules, which we believe to be much easier to distribute and to use. Different countries have their approaches, but I am satisfied, on the basis of what the chief medical officer and the head of our vaccination service have told me, that we are making exactly the preparations that we need.
	We have not ruled out using antivirals for post-exposure prophylaxis, but only in the early stages of pandemic in the UK. The advice that our experts have given me is that sustained use of antivirals for prophylaxis would not represent the best use of resources and would reduce the number of people whom we could treat with antivirals after they had caught the flu. We should bear in mind the possibility that extensive use of antivirals for prophylaxis could encourage development of a pandemic virus with antiviral resistance. Given what we know about antiviral bugs, I do not think that that is a risk that we would want to run.
	We decided to acquire the supplies of H5N1 as a precautionary measure to use for research or offer to priority groups, particularly health service workers, while the vaccine against the exact strain of pandemic flu was manufactured. It will also be valuable for our experts to be able to carry out further clinical studies of the H5N1 vaccine to learn more about how it works against the virus and how effective it could be.
	We will of course be placing advance-purchase and sleeping contracts for the pandemic vaccine. Equally, we are taking steps to ensure not only that we have necessary supplies of masks, gloves and other surgical equipment, but that we have proper means of disposing of gloves and masks. There is no point in having them and of the people wearing them being exposed to pandemic flu unless they can be safely disposed of. That is all part of our preparations. Finally, I can confirm that we will be looking at the impact of a possible pandemic on critical care and other aspects of the NHS.

Geoffrey Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we hear the criticisms and inquiries from the Opposition as being in the best motivated sense of the public interest—

Chris Grayling: indicated dissent.

Geoffrey Robinson: We do.
	Does she also accept that we understand that there are several different approaches to how best to handle the matter? However, it would be of great reassurance to the House if she could tell us that no budgetary or financial constraint will be imposed to restrict what she believes and what the expert advice, which we recognise to be unsurpassed in international terms, suggests should be done right now.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those points. I agree with him. We have already committed some £200 million to preparing for a flu pandemic. We are continuing to review what preparations will be needed. As we assess what preparations are appropriate, we will make that money available.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State seems to be presiding over a certain amount of chaos. Her Department has been considering the issue for a period of time and we can argue about whether it has made enough provision at the health end, but I am concerned about the publicity.
	More than 300,000 people keep poultry and chickens and do not have the sophisticated communications that she is talking about. Many will have been listening to and watching the BBC and other news outlets and discovering that a real crisis is heading in their direction. That is how it has been presented for two weeks. People who have poultry outside do not know whether to bring them in or to start getting rid of them, and all of a sudden they are being told that it is not quite so urgent and that the problem may not come until next year. Could the Secretary of State use the proper outlets, magazines and newspapers, for the Department to state clearly what the situation is for those people, rather than blaming the media for running away with it when the Department is partly to blame?

Patricia Hewitt: I somewhat regret the tone that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to adopt. The extent of our preparation is reflected by the fact that the earlier version of the contingency plan is a substantial, detailed and weighty document.
	I understand, as does the right hon. Gentleman, the enormous concerns of people who operate or work in poultry farms about the outbreak of avian flu in Turkey and other countries. I am assured by my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who have responsibility for animal health, that they are working extremely closely with poultry farmers and workers to ensure that they have proper information. As the right hon. Gentleman may not have heard the "Today" programme this morning, I refer him to the comments of the president of the National Farmers Union, who said that he was satisfied with both the preparations and the communication with poultry farmers and workers.

Chris McCafferty: Is there any evidence of humans being infected from eating infected poultry meat? Given that the outbreak was identified as originating in southern Asia, will there be any restrictions on imports from that area? If not, would not it be advisable to introduce labelling that allows customers to identify where the poultry they are purchasing is from? Will my right hon. Friend discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises two extremely important points. I understand that imports of poultry from countries where there has been an incidence of avian flu are already banned. I am also advised by the Food Standards Agency that there is no evidence of infection from eating thoroughly cooked poultry meat. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is content, from discussions with the industry, that the risk of avian flu spreading to domestic poultry remains low. At this stage, therefore, there is no need for the industry to bring free-range birds indoors. That issue is being dealt with extremely thoroughly, as I have just shown, by DEFRA.

Gregory Campbell: What steps are the Government taking to ensure that people in the vulnerable sections of our community, who are most likely to be at risk, such as the elderly and the very young, are protected? Some people in those communities traditionally have not taken advantage of the benefits available to them and may not be in a position to get the information that she is disseminating in the community. What steps are being taken to assist such people?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. For seasonal flu, the advice is that people aged over 65 or in other at-risk groups, such as children with asthma, bronchitis or other specified diseases, should be immunised every year. We have already run the annual information programme on that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to encourage his constituents who fall into those vulnerable groups to get the flu vaccination this year. It is sometimes forgotten that in some of the earlier flu pandemics in the last century, contrary to the expectation that the very old and the very young would be most at risk, it was among people of working age that the infection and the death rate was highest. That is why we should not be too hard and fast, at this point, about where the greatest risk would be should pandemic flu occur. We give that clear advice regarding seasonal flu, and I hope that this year we will surpass even last year's very high rate of more than 75 per cent. of over-65s getting the seasonal flu vaccination.

Lindsay Hoyle: We should purchase the gloves, masks and gowns, and should not worry about disposal, because we have incinerators around the country that were used effectively during the foot and mouth problem and at other times. Let us not mess about. Let us get the order in.
	I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State is working closely with DEFRA. Does the Department of Health have expertise that she can supply to DEFRA if there is overstretch regarding veterinary surgeons?

Patricia Hewitt: Let me reassure my hon. Friend: as I said before, those orders are being placed. Our co-operation with DEFRA is extremely close, although obviously we look to that Department on veterinary matters just as it looks to us on human health matters.

Bill Wiggin: There seems to be a problem in the media in separating the human disease from the bird disease. As a poultry keeper, my concern is that people who keep poultry are likely to be most at risk from the disease jumping from birds to people. Should people dispose of their poultry and will those who keep poultry or other birds be in the high-risk group?

Patricia Hewitt: At this point, that is predominantly a matter for DEFRA, but I understand that there is no immediate risk of avian flu in the United Kingdom. Should avian flu occur in the UK, with the risk increasing, the preparations would be stepped up as well. However, as I said earlier, DEFRA's advice to the hon. Gentleman and other poultry farmers at this point is that there is no need to bring free-range birds indoors or to take other precautions, apart from the obviously sensible hygiene precautions that would, I am sure, be routine in any well-kept poultry farm.

Andrew Miller: It is impossible to identify the strain at this stage, so it will inevitably be some months before it is possible to manufacture a vaccine. Indeed, it is conceivable that the virus will mutate as it spreads around the world—if that happens—thereby delaying the manufacturing process. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that Europe has sufficient manufacturing capacity to meet the needs? On seasonal flu, will she state clearly and unambiguously that people in the at-risk groups should go and get their jab soon, as their GP will invite them to do?

Patricia Hewitt: On the latter point, as I have already said, it is sensible for people in those at-risk groups to get their jab against seasonal flu every year, and I hope that this year we will have even higher take-up of that immunisation than usual.
	Vaccine manufacturing is a global industry. We are fortunate in Europe in having a significant vaccine manufacturing capacity in the European Union, but there is a shortage of the raw materials that are essential for producing the vaccine. The industry depends on a high level of scientific knowledge and manufacturing capability. It is not easy simply to enter the sector and decide to set up a vaccine manufacturing capacity; if it were easy, it would have been done. That is why we are working so closely with the industry to see whether, globally, it is possible both to speed up and scale up the production of vaccines.

Mike Hancock: Will the Secretary of State publish the evidence that she has to support her statement that eating contaminated chicken, providing it is well cooked, presents no threat to health?

Patricia Hewitt: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the website of the Food Standards Agency, the independent body that reached that conclusion on the basis of expert evidence. If it will help, I will also place that information in the Library.

Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend has urged people several times to go and get their seasonal flu jab. When I, a member of an at-risk group, phoned the surgery this morning, as I normally do at this time of year, I was told that it had no vaccine and will have none until towards the end of November, so there was no point in my contacting it before then. Is the natural public concern about bird flu causing excessive demand for the seasonal flu vaccine? Is that causing a difficulty? Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that there will be enough supplies?

Patricia Hewitt: I asked that very question of our chief medical officer and I am assured by our experts that there are adequate supplies available to GPs to ensure that anyone who is at risk and who therefore should have the vaccination can have it. However, if my hon. Friend lets me have further details of the difficulty that he encountered, I shall pursue the matter further.

Graham Stuart: Has the Secretary of State spoken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about additional moneys to deal with the pandemic and, if so, what was the response? Does she agree that, in the light of a possible pandemic, the closure of beds in community hospitals such as the one at Hornsea in my constituency is inappropriate and should be reversed?

Patricia Hewitt: I have already dealt with finance. The matter will be kept under review if the risk increases and preparations step up. On community hospitals, it is for the national health service locally to examine the configuration of services and ensure that they continue to be improved so that we deliver the best possible health care with the best possible value for taxpayers' money.

Adrian Sanders: I am glad to hear the Secretary of State stress several times the need for vulnerable groups such as older people to have their flu jab, but is there not a need for a Government information campaign that makes it absolutely clear that we are talking about three different threats to health: seasonal flu every year; avian flu, which is not yet established in this country; and a pandemic that may or may not happen in this country? Do we not need to make sure that it is clear in the public mind that there are three separate issues? I fear that some of the media coverage is confusing the public and making the right hon. Lady's job more difficult.

Patricia Hewitt: We ran this year's information campaign on seasonal flu earlier this month. We are using Department of Health and other agency websites to disseminate a great deal of accurate information about the three different issues—seasonal flu, avian flu and potential pandemic flu. We shall continue to broadcast that information as much as we can, especially through the briefings that the chief medical officer and other experts give to the media and, through the media, to the public. On Thursday, when we publish the updated pandemic contingency plan, we shall also make available to GPs communication materials to go directly into their surgeries.

Patrick Mercer: The right hon. Lady has made it clear that the threat has been known about for a long time. Would she therefore be kind enough to explain why funding for the Health Protection Agency was cut earlier this year?

Patricia Hewitt: The simple answer is that I do not know. However, it was probably the result of our continuing determination to reduce administrative costs throughout the public sector. If it was something else, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know.

Personal Statement

Stephen Byers: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement concerning the evidence I gave to the Transport Select Committee at its hearing on 14 November 2001.
	As the House will be aware, the High Court has recently heard the case of Weir and others v. Secretary of State for Transport and the Department for Transport. The action was brought on behalf of the Railtrack Private Shareholders Action Group. Their claim was for misfeasance in public office and concerned decisions I had taken in relation to Railtrack when I was Secretary of State for Transport. The central allegation made was that, by refusing to grant further taxpayers' money to Railtrack and by petitioning the court for its administration, I had shown targeted malice toward those holding shares in Railtrack. It was claimed that, as a result, I had committed a deliberate and dishonest abuse of my powers as Secretary of State by impairing the value of their shares in Railtrack without paying compensation and without the approval of Parliament.
	Last Friday, the High Court delivered its judgments in the case and found in favour of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Department for Transport. In the process of giving my testimony to the High Court, I was cross-examined on the evidence that I gave to the Transport Select Committee at its hearing on 14 November 2001. In particular, my attention was drawn to the reply that I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). That was question 857 of the Select Committee evidence. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there
	"was there any discussion, theoretical or otherwise, in your department before 25 July about the possibility of a future change in status for Railtrack, whether nationalisation, the move into a company limited by guarantee or whatever?"
	In reply, I said:
	"not that I am aware of."
	It was pointed out to me in court that that answer was inconsistent with the documents that had been disclosed to the court. I must inform the House that my reply was factually inaccurate. However, I must also tell the House that I did not intend deliberately to mislead the Select Committee. I would like to explain to the House what happened.
	On coming into office after the 2001 general election, I received a wide range of briefing papers covering all aspects of my Department's responsibilities. A number of these papers related to the railways. As a consequence, I asked for an options paper on the future of Railtrack to be drawn up. Initially, this was to be done solely by my Department but subsequently I asked that it be carried out jointly with the No. 10 policy directorate and the Treasury. At the time, I regarded the commissioning of this work as simply sensible contingency planning. However, it is my request for this work to be carried out that I now recognise could be interpreted as a discussion, and that would make my reply to the Select Committee factually inaccurate.
	A critical meeting took place on 25 July when the chairman of Railtrack outlined to me the financial difficulties that the company faced. It was only after that meeting that substantive discussions began about the possibility of changing the status of the company.
	Since the court hearing, I have thought long and hard about why I gave the answer that I did to the Select Committee. Having reviewed the documents that were put before the court, it would have been because I considered the meeting of 25 July to be the moment at which discussions began and that the commissioning of work to be carried out on the future options for Railtrack did not represent discussions in the true meaning of that word.
	I want the House to know that I did not lie to the Select Committee and that I did not deliberately mislead the Select Committee but that due to an inadvertent error I gave factually inaccurate evidence to the Committee. I deeply regret that this has happened. I wish to offer my sincere apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the whole House.

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will have heard from the statement of the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), I was the person who asked the question that is the subject of discussion today. I listened extremely carefully to what he has just said. I have also studied again the transcripts of what was said at the time as well as documents that are now available to us. I do not accept and I am not satisfied with his explanation and I seek your guidance on how to press the matter further.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has heard the statement by the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers). The best thing that he can do is reflect on it. If he is unsatisfied, he should come to the Speaker's Office and speak to the Speaker's secretary.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Transport (Wales) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Cross-border provision

'(1)   The section applies to those transport services that begin or end in Wales but which pass through England during the course of the route.
	(2)   In exercising its powers in relation to section 7(1) in respect of any service to which subsection (1) applies, the Assembly shall consult the Secretary of State.'.—[Bill Wiggin.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	With this provision, we seek to ensure that cross-border issues are dealt with definitely and effectively. We have argued the point several times throughout the Bill's progress in relation to a number of issues. Although some aspects have been suitably discussed and assurances given—I am certain that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales believes that his Government can protect the interest of English border travellers—we still have no definite proof that the Bill will work as the Government anticipate. We are trusting them on the Bill. The responsibility to ensure that it works for the benefit of the people of Wales, and not just according to Rhodri Morgan's unreasonable agenda, is firmly in the hands of the Government, although I have considerable reservations. On the BBC's morning programme, "Dragon's Eye", Rhodri Morgan gave his opinion of the Welsh Development Agency argument, saying:
	"Mr. Hain can express personal views, but in the end who has the responsibility? Who has the responsibility in Wales? It's us, it's the Assembly."
	Can we really trust Mr. Morgan to deal with cross-border issues reasonably and to listen to the views of the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Wales? Even if the Minister assures us that there will be collaboration and discussion, what real powers will the Government have to argue with Rhodri Morgan if he insists that the Assembly has total control over those transport issues in Wales?
	The splits between Westminster and Cardiff have never been more obvious or more serious not only for policy development, but for the best interests of the people of Wales. I agree with the Secretary of State that the WDA is a worldwide brand and that the advice to take a long hard look was both sensible and responsible. However, although he said that the WDA is the most successful economic development agency in the world Rhodri Morgan told ITV Wales:
	"Yes, but it's not a matter for him. This is a devolved matter."
	ITV Wales asked:
	"It doesn't bother you that the Cabinet Minister representing Wales is unhappy with your reform?"
	Rhodri Morgan replied:
	"Well, if it's a devolved matter it's a devolved matter, I don't know how often I have to repeat this. If it's a devolved matter it's a devolved matter, it's not a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales. I can say that 64 times, 64,000 times, 64 million times, I don't mind. The answer will always be the same."
	I find that attitude extraordinary.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make mischief. Does he truly believe that it would be better to have complete indecision in the process with two sets of people trying to make decisions on the same issue? Does he realise that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the only forum in this country for reconciling differences when the law is not clear where the responsibility lies? That can hardly be where he wants such issues to be resolved.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is usually a sensible chap and I am always happy to accept interventions from him. However, this problem is particularly worrying, because the Bill allows the Assembly to take responsibility for cross-border travel. It allows discussions between councils in England and the Welsh Assembly, but it is not clear who would finally adjudicate. He represents the interests of his constituents at Westminster, but no one in the Welsh Assembly represents my constituents. I am sure that the Minister will assure me that I need not worry about that difficulty, but the First Minister's attitude makes me worried about the Bill and about to whom people travelling to and from Wales across the border would have recourse.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman said that he particularly enjoyed giving way to me, so I am glad he has given way a second time. I know how consistent a man he is. He still seems to be arguing that there should be two people in charge of the same policy. If their views happened to be different, the only means of reconciling them would be by reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Surely he is not suggesting that rail services on the borders of England and Wales should be decided by that body.

Bill Wiggin: No. The hon. Gentleman should read the new clause. It seeks to ensure that any dispute would be referred to the Secretary of State for Transport. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He is right.
	How can we be certain that the Minister's promises in Committee or in the House today will be as helpful as we all want to believe they will be? We still have no explicit assurances in the Bill that English local authorities will have useful recourse to a Secretary of State in Westminster in the event of problems in the creation of local transport plans or in the implementation of policies on transport crossing the border. We are still unsure what form discussions between English and Welsh authorities will take, particularly the Welsh joint transport authorities.
	We have no guarantees that people in England who use Welsh transport will be able to make effective representations to the public transport users committee for Wales. I still have deep concerns that people who live in authorities just outside Wales will have to suffer a long and drawn-out route of representation to the Assembly, if they are represented at all. It is bad enough that English local authorities must make representations to a Secretary of State who then makes representations to the Assembly, but it is unforgivable that there is no certainty of that occurring effectively.
	Given the obvious trend in the opinions of the leadership of the Assembly, I wonder whether we should have taken a far less trusting approach to the Bill. I tabled the new clause to ensure successful cross-border and Westminster-Cardiff relations as regards transport in Wales.

Lembit �pik: Until I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), the Conservative spokesperson on Welsh affairs, I had assumed that his new clause intended consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales, but it seems that he means the Secretary of State for Transport. Will he clarify that?

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is right, depending which was the more appropriate Secretary of State. Constituents who live outside Wales must have an opportunity to be represented, as they are in the House but not in the Assembly.

Lembit �pik: From the way in which the new clause is framed, it is not clear to me that that is the intention. The vagueness in the drafting could cause problems, but I am grateful for the clarification.

Bill Wiggin: I hope that the Minister will give us assurances to allay my fears, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments on the drafting.

Lembit �pik: I thought of little else during the weekend. If I had been able to call the hon. Gentleman on Friday, I might have enjoyed my Saturday and Sunday more, but now I am relieved and Wales will breathe a sigh of relief after his remarks.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which we discussed during the Bill's earlier stages, but I am worried about the consequences of accepting new clause 1 as it stands. We all agree that there have been terrible problems with public transport in Wales, as in the United Kingdom. I agree that the Labour Administration in Wales have not done much to resolve the legion problems created previously by the Conservative Government. We have a serious transport problem caused by two Governments of different colours.
	The new clause is really about cross-border provision and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for Leominster, because it would be inconceivable for significant investment decisions to be made without pretty much automatic recourse to cross-border discussion. Any significant investment will necessarily involve a degree of negotiation between the Welsh Assembly and the Administration in Westminster, because a clear understanding of the financial jurisdiction of those two Administrations would have to be ironed out. That could not take place unless one had a fairly sophisticated and high-level strategic discussion beforehand.
	Another reason I am not as worried as the hon. Gentleman is that there are plenty of precedents for this in other aspects of cross-border relations. All the work that we have done to deal with flooding in mid-Wales and with the considerable problems that we have with health has required a high level of cross-border discussion.
	I have previously highlighted the risks involved in framing legislation on the basis of the current political environment. The hon. Gentleman gave his views about the individuals who are currently in charge in Wales. I ask him to look forward to another occasion where the strains might be even greater. Let us say that from 2009 to 2050 there is a benign Administration led by the Liberal Democrats in the Assembly and also in Westminster.

Bill Wiggin: Get real.

Lembit �pik: Make it 80 years, then. Let us say that, after that time, there is a sharp divide between an Administration of one colour in the Assembly and one of another colour in Westminster, who would nevertheless have to negotiate about the matters that I mentioned. Subsection (2) of the new clause would be a green light to a significant division whereby the process of consultation could be used to hold up recommendations and decisions made by the Welsh Assembly. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I am worried that his new clause could increase the likelihood of mischief where two Administrations from two parties seek to obstruct the progress of the other.

Nick Ainger: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) for trusting the Government on this. I hope to persuade him to withdraw his new clause, for reasons that I argued in Committee when we debated his amendment No. 1. I shall bear it in mind that everybody wants to conclude our proceedings as early as possibleespecially Conservative Members.
	The new clause would require the Assembly to consult the Secretary of State for Transport if any passenger transport service that it secures using the powers in section 7 ran through England. I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Leominster regarding the cross-border implications of the Bill, which we have debated at length. As I said in Committee, the transport network in Wales is part of the wider UK network, and such issues cannot be ignored when considering the need for additional passenger services in Wales. The power in clause 7 will allow the Assembly to secure public transport services to meet transport requirements within Wales that would not otherwise be met. As such, the Assembly envisages that the power will be used sparingly to fill significant gaps in service provision. If such services were to run through Englandwhich, if anything, is likely to benefit passengers from England because we are considering additional servicesit is inconceivable that the Assembly would fail to consult the Secretary of State for Transport as a matter of course.
	Let me reiterate the point. The hon. Member for Leominster said that he wanted to trust the Government on the matter. I have put it on the record that it is inconceivable that the Assembly would fail to consult the Secretary of State for Transport for what would be additional services for English passengers.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister is doing a grand job of dealing with my concerns. He has talked about additional services. In view of the obvious breakdown of relations between the Secretary of State and the First Minister, may I ask who would adjudicate if, for example, the Secretary of State for Transport was asked for a lot of money during consultation on a new service that was to cross the border into England? Who would determine such matters?

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman has now raised a different matter. The Bill is clear that, in the case of any additional service that passed through England as a result of a policy that the Welsh Assembly developed, the Assembly would fund the part of the service that was in Wales. However, the fact that the route continued into England and possibly returned to Walesa possibility on the borderwould not place a requirement on the Department for Transport or a local authority to fund that part of the service. Clearly, such a service depends on the support of the Assembly. Clause 7 deals with that. We are considering services that do not currently exist and that local authorities are not willing to support, for whatever reason, but for which there may be a strategic need, identified by the Assembly. The Assembly would therefore fund them. It would not expect any other authority in Wales or in England or the Department for Transport to contribute to that service. I hope that that has reassured the hon. Gentleman and I therefore ask him to withdraw the new clause.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the new clause and for taking my intervention. I am satisfied that the Bill covers the problem, especially since he was sensible and kind enough to emphasise the additional services, about which I was concerned.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Nick Ainger: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill, which received its Second Reading on 16 June and was considered in Standing Committee on 28 June, will enable the Assembly to take forward its integrated transport strategy by providing it with a comprehensive and coherent set of transport powers. It is an example of the sort of measure that could, in principle, be taken forward by the Assembly if the legislative proposals laid out in the Better Governance for Wales White Paper were already in force.
	The Bill's objectives have been widely welcomed by all who have been involved in its scrutiny. It was first published in draft on 27 May 2004. Local authorities, regional transport consortiums, Assembly-sponsored public bodies, transport authorities, police and fire authorities, representative bodies and interest groups, utilities and transport operators were among those consulted on the draft Bill.
	The Assembly received 48 responses following the publication of the draft Bill, including comments from a wide range of public and professional groups including the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and the Welsh Local Government Association. Of the 135 recommendations and comments received on the text, 60 were comments of general support, while six recommended amendments to clauses relating to rail that were subsequently removed. In total, 14 recommendations made as part of the public consultation were accepted, and subsequent changes were made to the draft Bill.
	The Bill has also been scrutinised jointly by the Welsh Affairs Committee of this House and the Assembly's Economic Development and Transport Committee. Those meetings, which were the first time that a House of Commons Committee had formally met a Committee of a devolved Administration, demonstrated an innovative and progressive approach to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill was further debated in the Welsh Grand Committee in July 2004 and received widespread support. Indeed, the Bill has consistently received cross-party support, which was reflected in its smooth passage on Second Reading and in Committee. The thorough, detailed debate in Committee covered a wide range of issues and generated a high level of consensus.
	I am grateful for the co-operation of the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and other hon. Members on the overall aims of the Bill. However, that did not prevent detailed and vigorous discussion and a thorough examination of all its provisions. The Government did not table any amendments, and 18 of the 20 Opposition amendments discussed in Committee were withdrawn following an in-depth debate. Two Opposition amendments were lost on a vote.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for Leominster asked me to reflect on a number of questions before Third Reading. The first was whether a local authority in England that objected to the draft transport strategy during the consultation process would be able to make appropriate representations to the Assembly. I would like to reiterate the point that I made in Committee that if such a situation arose, an English authority could make representations to the Secretary of State for Transport, who in turn could make representations to the Welsh Assembly and the Assembly's Economic Development and Transport Minister. However, one of the main purposes underlying the Bill is that local authorities in England whose areas abut Wales should be involved in the development of the Wales transport strategy, and that the strategy should work for people on both sides of the border.
	The hon. Gentleman's second question was whether local authorities should have regard to their current commitments when drafting their local transport plans. As I mentioned in Committee, I cannot envisage a situation arising in which local authorities would develop policies to be included in such plans that did not take account of their existing commitments. However, those commitments should not be the main factor in developing local transport plans, which should evolve over time to take account of external factors and the changing needs of Welsh communities and businesses. Local authorities should not be restricted by current commitments, which will, in turn, also develop and evolve in line with the strategy.
	The third question that the hon. Gentleman asked me to consider was whether a direction given by the Assembly to two or more local authorities to enter into joint working arrangements could result in increased costs for those authorities. The Assembly works in partnership with local authorities when developing its policies, and it will therefore consider how additional costs arising from any extra responsibilities imposed on local authorities will be met. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, under the partnership agreement, the Assembly would recompense local authorities for any additional functions they may take on, and that it is therefore unnecessary to include any provisions in the Bill in relation to that.
	I was also asked to consider the wording of clause 5(5), which provides that local authority members must form the majority of any joint transport authority in relation to defining the quorum of a joint transport authority in the Bill. I have given careful thought to this suggestion. The Bill already states that at least half the members of a joint transport authority will be members of local authorities. It is not for us to specify here what the quorum would be, as any order of the National Assembly for Wales setting up a joint transport authority will specify that as well as detailing the composition, financing and functions of the authority.
	While we are discussing joint transport authorities, it may be helpful if I make clear that it will not be possible to create a joint transport authority whose area extends outside Wales. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that. I hope that I have been able to deal with his concerns, and that he is content with the explanations that I have given.
	The public transport users committee for Wales was discussed in some detail in Committee. I repeat that it will be independent of the Assembly, and will have autonomy to make a real difference for users of all modes of public transport in Wales. The London Transport users committee continues to be an effective representative of the views of public transport passengers in Greater London, and I see no reason why the Welsh committee should not function in the same way.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who chaired the Welsh Affairs Committee, to parliamentary colleagues, and to the Assembly for the scrutiny that it conducted when the Bill was published in draft. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) for her chairmanship of the Standing Committee. She supervised the proceedings in a thoroughly professional and very expeditious way.
	The Bill will enable the Assembly to start delivering its vision for an integrated transport system for the whole of Wales, particularly as it will place a duty on the Assembly to develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport facilities and services. I commend it to the House.

Bill Wiggin: I echo the Minister's kind comments about the Chairman of the Select Committee, and indeed the Chairman of the Standing Committee. Their help and hard work were greatly appreciated.
	I think we are all familiar with the problems and issues that have been present throughout the scrutiny of our proposals. As the Minister said in Committee, the Bill is not about more powers for the Assembly, but about responsibilities for developing policies and strategies for the benefit of transport in Wales. However, the Assembly's responsibility to implement the policies as well is just one of the aspects that have created problems that are still present. We should all like to see positive changes in the delivery of transport services in Wales, and I am sure that everyone here hopes that the Bill will achieve them. Yet since the outset we have had a number of concerns, which remain unsolved to an extent. They were addressed in Committee, but we must be sure that the Government are genuinely committed to living up to the assurances they have given.
	In Committee, the Minister admitted:
	There may well be severe problems developing policies within Wales.
	If that is what the representative of the Government feels about the Bill's prospects, it is not really surprising that we too have our doubts.
	In Committee we debated, at some length, the finer details of developing the Wales transport strategy. I suggested that perhaps the Bill should require the Assembly to consult certain bodies as a matter of course. We were reassured about our desire to see all groups with an interest in transport developments, from local businesses to disabled people's charities, being offered a genuine say in changes.
	The Welsh Assembly's previous tendency to consult similar bodies on issues each time, and the criticism voiced about failings in the Assembly's Committee system to deal properly with scrutiny, mean that we shall watch the development of that aspect carefully. We shall have to ensure that, as we were promised in Committee, the Assembly really does consult as many relevant organisations as possible, including those more likely to give unfavourable responses when new policies and developments are considered.
	The Minister also assured us that when the Wales transport strategy was being developed, cross-border issues would be taken fully into account. I think that he did that in his closing statements. I am grateful to him for taking on board the points that I asked him to consider, and for the way in which he responded.
	We have considered the cross-border issue consistently. In Committee, we were assured that the Government would accept responsibility for negotiating on behalf of English counties, and that any English local authority facing problems as a result of the strategy developed by the Assembly could make representations to a Minister such as the Secretary of State for Transport. We will be watching closely to ensure that the reasonable procedure that the Minister outlined for consultation and adjudication in the event of an impasse is followed.
	We were also assured that the Assembly would work with organisations that span the border, such as the many train companies that operate throughout England and Wales. In Committee we were promised
	a great deal of discussion
	with organisations contributing to the network in Wales that are based outside Wales. I look forward to seeing the results of that, too.
	In Committee, I stressed the need for local transport plans to be monitored to ensure that they were produced in reasonable time and stressed that, as soon as practicable, the wording in the Bill, provides a closely monitored and sensible time limit. We were assured that no penalties were necessary to ensure the timely production of local transport plans and that local authorities must do as the Assembly says if it issues a direction regarding those plans. I was glad to hear the Minister confirm that and I hope that that will always prove to be the case.
	We will also watch with interest to ensure that joint transport authorities are genuinely appropriately funded, neither forcing more responsibilities on to local authorities without suitable funds, nor becoming another example of waste and inept usage of Welsh taxpayers' hard-earned money. Despite assurances that the results of local authorities working together will be to produce savings rather than more costs, we must watch closely the impact of running a joint transport authority, which, sadly, is assumed will cost approximately 1 million per annum, in addition to 100,000 to 200,000 in set-up costs. The potential for the creation of costly administration and support teams, new quangos and more bureaucracy must be held in check. Financial controls operating in the Assembly must work to ensure probity when committing public funds and to ensure that those funds are appropriate and well placed. Indeed, I was grateful for the Minister's comments on that.
	In Committee, we were informed that joint transport authorities cannot cross the border, but local authorities can be instructed to consult on matters with JTAs. The Minister mentioned that I would be pleased about that. I remain absolutely impartial. Of course, I want what is best for Wales but, if the JTAs are working particularly well we would like to see them in operation across the border, too. We must be certain to check that they are as good as we hope they will be when cross-border issues come into play.
	We must also watch the practices of the public transport users committee for Wales, particularly on cross-border issues. In Committee, the Minister said that if those who live outside Wales have an issue relating to transport he
	would have thought that the committee would take up any representation that they made. [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 28 June 2005, c. 13, 8, 44.]
	That does not seem to be a particularly definite or optimistic view on the ability of those who use Welsh transport to have a voice. However, I look forward to seeing a truly effective and representative committee of users of Welsh transport. I am sure that we will all keep a watchful eye on anything untoward should it occur.
	We have debated in great detail the fact that the Bill gives the Assembly the ability to provide financial assistance only to services or facilities that would not exist without its help. We believe that the Assembly should be afforded the opportunity to help those services that can exist unaided even further. In certain cases, the Assembly should be given greater freedom to spend its money on whatever it believes to be the most beneficial recipient.
	Perhaps that opportunity is most pertinent to aviation in Wales. I am sure that the Minister will remember that I said that I remain open-minded on the issue. Of course, it is advantageous to the Assembly to have the ability to fund air transport if it so desires, and those developments could have economic advantages for Wales, although that is far from proven. Obviously, the benefits to the Welsh economy must be considered.

David Davies: No doubt all Members will be pleased that my hon. Friend is so open-minded. Is he aware that the Liberal Democrat Welsh Assembly Member for South Wales West is less liberal on the issue? He said:
	I would far rather continue to improve pinch points on the A470 and A483 and use this money to subsidise a good rail service
	than put it into air services. Is not it about time that the Liberal Democrats got a coherent transport policy on this matter?

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is right but I think he is over-optimistic if he thinks that the Liberal Democrats will ever have a coherent policy. I admire him for his optimism, just as I admire the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) for his endless enthusiasm for Liberal Democrat policies, despite their lack of coherence.

Lembit �pik: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder if I could remind all hon. Members that we are debating the Third Reading of the Bill, rather than a particular party's transport policy.

Lembit �pik: It was exactly for that reason that I wanted to ensure that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) would never accuse me of being anything other than utterly consistent in my support for aviation transport.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely adamant about his admiration for air transport. We are all worried about whether the Assembly is spending its money in the most effective way for the people of Wales. We would like the Assembly to have the flexibility to help services that could exist but might need aid, which might be a better use of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his desire to see flying in Wales, and he goes gliding at the weekend as well. No one could be more committed to gravity than he is.
	The benefits to the Welsh economy must be considered, and we need definite answers as to how many people would use and benefit from Welsh air transport and on the comparative benefits of developing better road and rail services. The Assembly consultation document on intra-Wales scheduled air services suggested that a maximum of 80 direct jobs and 120 indirect jobs would result from such provision. I am not yet convinced that the estimated 800,000 required to subsidise air transport in year one and the 400,000 to upgrade facilities at Valley airport could not be better spent elsewhere. The need for subsidies to begin air transport services in the first place raises the issue of whether these services would be workable in the long term.
	In the first quarter of this year, the number of passengers using Cardiff international airport slumped by 19 per cent. and it is possible that only 400 passengers a week might use flights within Wales. We must be sure to keep an extremely watchful eye on these developments and make sure that if subsidised services demonstrably fail, they do not turn into an expensive failure for Wales.
	Several more important issues must be considered and monitored if and when the expansion of air travel occurs. We know that short-haul flights are particularly damaging to the environment. By 2050, aircraft will be one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gases. Indeed, greenhouse gases from aircraft rose by almost 90 per cent. between 1990 and 2003. In Wales, carbon dioxide emissions have risen from their 1990 levels, making a great contribution as the Government, sadly, head toward missing their carbon dioxide emission targets. With the Government meant to be tackling climate change so seriously, there seems to be something of a contradiction in condoning a further increase in air transport in the UK, especially when the need for it or the number of those who favour it is far from proven.
	The use of money on such a clearly unsustainable form of transport must continue to be monitored and scrutinised very carefully, especially when the Government are putting so little funding and effort into research towards development for cleaner fuels for air transport.
	During the progress of the Bill, we have sought to test the Government's intentions and have received many valuable assurances. I am sure that we all look forward to seeing those put into practice. We have drawn attention to the various anomalies and problems present in the Bill and I still have some doubts about several aspects. But I hope that the Act truly creates safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport facilities and services throughout Wales and look forward to seeing its positive effects making a real difference for the people of Wales.

John Smith: I rise to speak briefly in support of the Third Reading of the Bill, which I warmly welcome. I congratulate all those involved in guiding it through the House.
	Unlike the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), I am a big supporter of Cardiff international airport. I should like to place it on record that despite the reduction in services experienced earlier this year, Cardiff remains the fastest growing regional airport in the UK and is on target to reach the aviation White Paper's target of a quadrupling of throughput of passengers by 2020.

Bill Wiggin: What led the hon. Gentleman to come up with the extraordinary accusation that I am not a supporter of Cardiff airport?

John Smith: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that in placing on the record the decline in passenger services this year, he was attacking the growth in short-haul flights and the increase in air travel.

David Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Welsh Assembly Member for South Wales West, Alun Cairns, has done a huge amount in the fight to get a bypass to Cardiff airport from the M4?

John Smith: I have campaigned on the issue of surface access to Cardiff international airport for the past 20 years, and I am completely unaware of any proposal for a bypass.
	Importantly, the Bill will enable joined-up thinking on how we can tackle what is probably one of the most important transport issues affecting Wales. Its powers and provisionsthe hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) will support me on this issue, given his long background in campaigning for the Welsh aviation industrywill enable suitable surface access to Cardiff airport. However, the numbers will not grow in the way that I mentioned earlier if this issue is not addressed seriously and quickly. I hope that the Bill will help in that regard by bringing together all the players involved in the provision of vital access to the airport, in order to help find the quickest possible solution to this problem.
	I welcome the opening earlier this year of the Vale of Glamorgan railway line, which was a huge step forward not just for my constituency but for transport policy in Wales as a whole. It provides an excellent commuter run all the way from Bridgendmy hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) is not presentto Cardiff via Barry; and, vitally, it provides a direct link to Cardiff international airport via Rhoose Point. So people will be able to travel by train nearly all the way to what is the fastest growing regional airport in the UK, and will need to take only a short bus journey from Rhoose Point station. But with the best will and according even to the most positive predictions, that line is unlikely to carry more than 10 per cent. of all the passengers using the airport. That presents a huge problem in terms of congestion on the roads surrounding the airport and people's ability to get to it. If that problem is not solved first, we will not be able to achieve the tasks set out in the White Paper.

Nigel Evans: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need all possible links to Cardiff Wales airport to ensure that the numbers using it are boosted. But does he not agree that the Welsh Assembly Government should have pulled their finger out a long time ago by working with everybody to ensure the creation of that link road? Will he also carry on campaigning with Conservative Members to ensure that British Airways comes back to Cardiff Wales airport?

John Smith: It certainly is absolutely outrageous that British Airways took its regional services away from the airport. That said, I am absolutely delighted that bmibaby not only replaced those services but added to them substantially. It is British Airways that lost out by pulling out of the airport. This is a vital matter, and I agree that we must develop and enhance all routes to the airport in the interests not just of my constituency and the south Wales economy, but of all Wales.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no long-term alternative to having a public transport link from the centre of Cardiff to the centre of the airport without the bus connection? Does he further agree that, although there are significant associated logistical and investment problems, in the long term the provision of such a link is the single most important thing that we can do to ensure sustainable connections to the airport?

John Smith: I want to think carefully before I answer that question. I believe that a direct link into the airporta spur off the Porthkerry viaductthat is integrated into the UK inter-city network would provide a huge advantage. In the longer term, that is clearly something that we should press for. Similarly, we should press for a direct linknot a bypassfrom the airport through the A4232 at Five Mile lane and right through to the M4 at the Llantrisant junction. However, that is a long way off.

David Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the only thing preventing that from happening at the moment is the Welsh Assembly Administration, which is run by his colleagues in the Labour party?

John Smith: I do not want to get involved in a childish tit-for-tat on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we have an important Bill before us. I am not getting into the business of knocking anyone; rather, I am in the business of providing Wales with a transport network that is the envy of the world. A network that integrates our air services would provide exactly that, because there is no example in the world of a successful economy generating and regenerating itself without a first-class international airport providing scheduled business flights throughout the world. That is exactly what we all should be striving for in respect of Cardiff international airport.
	On both sides of the House, we should be campaigning for a direct rail link, just as we should be striving for a direct dual carriageway link to the M4 corridor, which would get us into the UK road networks. However, that is going to take years, if not decades, and the problem is that we cannot stand still on the issue.
	I hate to use the example againthere is always a danger of highlighting the problems at Cardiff international airport, when it is the fastest-growing regional airport in the UKbut it was Digby Jones as director-general of the CBI who described the existing road from the M4 corridor to the Cardiff international airport as the only such airport road in the world on which one could get stuck behind a milk float for nine miles.

Stephen Crabb: How can Cardiff airport be the fastest growing in Europe if passenger numbers are falling?

John Smith: I did not say in Europe, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is obviously not listening and not interested in the debate. I said that it was the fastest growing airport in the UK, as defined by growth over the last five yearsnot on the basis of one quartile assessment, the findings of which have been abused to bash the airport this afternoon. We must act immediately and I believe that the Bill may well help us to do so. That is why I am speaking in favour of it this evening.
	Proposals have been put forward by the Welsh Assembly Government and are under consideration right now. However, it must be stressed that this is a short-term measure to try to tackle the problem that Digby Jones referred to. We are talking about a tiny road, one of the most congested junctions in the whole of south Wales, at Culverhouse Cross, and then mini-roundabouts that currently have to be negotiated all the way to the airport. We will not be able to develop our airport as long as that type of access continues.
	You will be delighted to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have it on good authority that Catherine Zeta Jones is going to be delighted. When flying into Cardiff to visit her home in Swansea, she has often complained that she cannot easily get from the airport on to the motorway. She has, in fact, been using the Zeta Jones shortcutsdown the Five Mile lane, cutting across through the country lanes to Pendoylan. The Welsh Assembly Government have proposed trunking the A4232, Five Mile lane, and the trunking of a short section of the A48 as an interim measure to try to tackle the problem of the congested existing road that feeds the airport.

Nigel Evans: I am devastated by the news that the hon. Gentleman has brought us about Catherine Zeta Jones. Perhaps she could ask her husband to fund the project.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again I remind hon. Members that we are discussing Third Reading of the Transport (Wales) Bill.

John Smith: I am extremely grateful for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I would not want to answer that question.
	Proposals have been put forward. As I understand it, they are still out to consultation. They are temporary, immediate proposals to try to ease the problem of access to the airport. They are not satisfactory. The upgrading of Five Mile lane is a blessing and is welcome, because it is one of the most dangerous stretches of road in the country. The maintaining of the A48, if properly done, may improve the situation. Sadly, however, the local authority, the Vale of Glamorgan county council, has completely shelved the proposals to

Stephen Crabb: Who runs that?

John Smith: I have no wish to go into that. My concern is to meet the challenge and improve access to the airport, which is what everybody from all parties wants.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All parties want that, but it is not covered by the Bill. Responsibility for roads is already devolved. The second problem is that existing successful businesses will not be eligible for the sponsorship that the Bill allows. Those businesses will not get more money. Only businesses that do not exist, or cannot exist without the necessary funding, will be eligible for the funding that the Bill makes possible.

John Smith: My understanding is that the Bill strengthens the powers of the Welsh Assembly Government to direct local authorities and other providers of transport strategies and transport provision. That is exactly the point. We have a ridiculous situation in which the Welsh Assembly Government have put forward an interim measure to help alleviate the problem of getting to Cardiff international airport and the local authority has dumped plans to upgrade the existing road, the A4050, the north-east access to Barry. That is vital not only to the future development of the airport but to the future development of Barry town. Barry has been left out of the transport loop by the proposals.

David Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is clearly a problem in funding those local authorities?

John Smith: My understanding is that the increase in funding to Welsh local authorities has been substantial over a number of years. How local authorities decide to spend the money has until now been entirely a matter for them. My hope is that under the Bill more pressure will be exerted on irresponsible local authorities such as the one that has shelved one of the most important road building proposals in my constituency.
	I hope that the Bill will put that right. It is the hope of everybody in the House that the Bill will put that right and that the local authority will put a vital road back into its roads strategy so that we can improve the links to our airport, which will benefit everybody in Wales. That is why I support the Bill tonight.

Lembit �pik: I left my office in Montgomeryshire at 10.20 this morning and, thanks to the years of under-investment by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and his colleagues and the failure to turn things round in the past eight years, I arrived in Westminster at 3 pm. It took a little short of five hours, with four extra station stops, three trains, two delays and one cancellation. In fact, the only thing that prevented me from losing my temper was the nice man at the information desk at Birmingham International, who said he thought that I should be the next leader of my party and then spoilt it by adding, Good luck in tomorrow's ballot. [Interruption.] I say that not to seek sympathyor the nomination of the hon. Member for Leominsterbut to give a small and pertinent example of how badly our transport system needs to be sorted out.
	Rail services in Wales and across the UK have been allowed to decline in earnest since the 1970s. British transport policy for the last three decades has been confused and ineffective, and the result is that we all have to put up with overpriced and unreliable services. By comparison, to make the same journey by car as I made by train today would have taken a little less than four hours, door to door. While it is a hassle to drive, at least people know that they will get where they want to go. That is the biggest single reason why so many people choose to drive instead of taking public transport.
	Transport problems have plagued Wales for a long time now. A lack of good-quality local public transport is a great opportunity for the Assembly to show that it is better than Westminster at solving some basic problems. The Bill does not provide the answers, but it will enable the Assembly to do just that. The problems need to be solved because they have a direct impact on business. Transport problems in Wales have undoubtedly caused serious harm to the national economy. They have accentuated the two-paced nature of the Welsh economy by inhibiting growth across much of the countrythe areas that are difficult to access. Of course, ruralmostly westernareas have suffered most.
	Transport problems also affect the quality of people's lives. They have hit rural areas such as mid-Wales particularly hard, and the most vulnerable people hardest of all. Pensioners in Powys are caught between a rock and a hard place: either they roll the roulette wheel of local public transport and hope they do not get stuck, or they take their cars, bear the brunt of sky-high petrol prices and add to congestion.
	The Bill is to be welcomed as a new chapter for Welsh transport, and I hope that it will mean brighter times ahead. However, it also provides a great opportunity in the third dimension. We could finally establish a modest but important inter-Wales air network. The signs are good. The long talked-about expansion of Welshpool airport is to go ahead, which is a good example of what can happen when the case is argued with the Welsh Development Agency, the local authority and the Assembly. The facts showed that the expansion would be a good economic investment, with no terrible environmental consequences.
	While the expansion seems a small step, it hints that we may be reaching a point at which we can begin to capitalise on the potentially great advantages that a developed Welsh air network could bring. The nature of the Welsh landscape is such that on many routes, air is the swiftest, and most convenient, means of travel. We should not ignore the possibilities.
	I always listen with interest to what Conservative Members say about air transport. Much is made of the environmental and economic costs of short-haul flights, but that debate usually involves Boeing 737s, which are large 100-plus seater aircraft, which would not be used for trips from north to south Wales.

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman listens to what we say about air transport, but has he listened to what his colleagues say about it? The Welsh Assembly Member for Cardiff Central has said:
	North-South Air-links are a good idea in principle, but the number of people who want to travel to the North West of Wales is limited.

Lembit �pik: That does not contradict what I am saying; in fact, it fits in with my point exactly. No one will ever run a Boeing 737 from Anglesey to Cardiff because there are not enough people to justify it. However, as my Assembly colleague said, there is a limited demand for that service. Obviously, it is preferable to make journeys by rail, for example, where that is feasible and effective, but unless it is Conservative policy to build a direct rail link from Anglesey to Cardiff, the only sensible way to provide a fast connection between north and south Wales is by air.
	We are looking at small numbers of passengers in some cases, and it is small aircraft that could provide us with the backbone of an effective, quick means of getting from A to B. A Piper Chieftain can easily take eight passengersperhaps nine at a pushfrom north Wales to Cardiff in as little as 50 minutes. As for environmental consequences, such a flight would take about three gallons of fuel per personless than that used by eight or nine people each driving themselves from north Wales to south Wales and back again. We know that oftentimes people drive because they have to get from north to south and the railways would take far longer.

David Jones: Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the demand for such a service? I recall that in 2003 Air Wales started a service between Cardiff and Liverpool, which is far closer to the large population centres in north Wales, and it closed within six weeks because of a lack of demand.

Lembit �pik: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have made some limited assessment of demand, although it is notoriously difficult to do so because, with air services, demand often follows supply rather than the other way round. The hon. Gentleman is now asking me about an area about which I perhaps know too much, but as he has asked, I will answer.
	In 199798, when the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), now the Secretary of State for Wales, and I were considering these matters, it seemed that there was potential underlying demand, but in my judgment it will justify not 100-seater aircraft but something that will take one or two dozen people. There is a well established precedent: in the south of Ireland a strategic decision was taken to connect the country with a regional air network. That has been fabulously successful in driving the economies in those areas, many of which have a relatively small population, because they can now be quickly accessed by business people.
	When I was working for Procter and Gamble in Newcastle upon Tyne

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has extensive knowledge of this subject, but perhaps he could return to the Third Reading of the Transport (Wales) Bill.

Lembit �pik: My very next words were to have been, and that is why the Third Reading of this Bill is so important to air transport in Wales. I apologise for digressing, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I get very excited about aircraft. The brief opportunity to sit down has calmed my spirit.
	Returning to the specifics of Wales, I say to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) that, in implementing the Bill, we have to make an informed assessment of what is feasible for air transport in the medium term. That ties into something that I need to clarify about my view of how the opportunity to support and fund regional aviation in Wales should be approached. I would be very resistant about taking the opportunity provided in the Bill to have an indefinite subsidy for aviation services. Although I can understand, at a push, that people even more fanatical than I might argue for that, it is my judgment that the best investment that this Bill provides is pump-priming. At Welshpool airport, the infrastructure is being built; nevertheless it would not be prudent for the Welsh Assembly to end up in an open-ended commitment to subsidise air transport that would necessarily be the domain primarily of business customers and perhaps a few wealthy private travellers. I agree with those who think that we must not place an enormous strain on Welsh expenditure by entering into something that we do not understand. The good news is that the Bill does not require that to happen, but does require some sensible investment.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith): we have a hub airport in the form of Cardiff. Although we have to think about the macro-environmental effects of aviation overall, that is no reason to hold Cardiff back. All of air transport must start living up to its environmental responsibilities. In that context, we should all agree that if Wales is to prosper and be an attractive centre of investment and tourism, we have to ensure that Cardiff international airport is well connected internationally, as well as internally in terms of land transport. I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comments in that respect.
	Those who question the benefit of aviation should remember that all the parties have proved its advantage. All the party leaders have been seen flying about the country. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was seen in his small helicopter, cruelly referred to by some of my colleagues as the batmobile. That shows that everyone who wants to travel quickly and can afford it tends to use aviation.
	Although the Bill provides a good opportunity to discuss the infrastructure developments needed for Wales to establish its own regional air network, other matters, not directly related to the Bill, need to be considered. There are questions, which I shall not go into in great detail, about the use of American-registered aircraft in Wales and the UK as a whole, and the instrument rating and other qualifications that are required in the UK compared with the United States. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), has agreed to meet me and MPs from other parties to discuss those issues. I am optimistic that that will smooth the way to using the opportunities created by the Bill to the full.
	I hope that the scepticism that I have heard from the hon. Member for Leominster and others does not suggest that they oppose the Airbus developments in Hawarden. The A380 is the single most significant civil airliner being constructed in the world today and I am proud of the fact that that development is taking place in north Wales. I strongly support the environmental benefits that it will bring in terms of reducing emissions while carrying the same number of passengers as other aircraft.

Mark Tami: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, because there was a great deal of concern when Mr. Isherwood, the Assembly Member for North Wales, questioned the legality of repayable launch investment, in a clear attempt to undermine the project.

Lembit �pik: It is a shame that people do that. We have enough trouble with Boeing without having enemies in our own ranks. I hope that, to use a phrase from another time, it was merely a moment of madness. [Laughter.] That, Madam Deputy Speaker, was also a rhetorical point.
	Overall, we should aim to create a regional air network but, coming back to earth, we should recognise that the single most environmentally friendly way to make long-distance journeys is by rail. Rail is also a vital tool of regeneration for deprived areas, so it must be the centrepiece of transport reforms. Many people have written to me on the subject, and I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same experience. To mention only one, the Very Reverend Archimandrite Father Deiniol has discussed rail infrastructure extensively. I hope that the Assembly will take a strategic decision to support the long-term investment required in rail infrastructure. That will be expensive. The Bill does not provide the funds; it merely provides the opportunity and gives the Assembly the freedom to discuss the issue meaningfully.

Daniel Kawczynski: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that improving rail services across the border in England would benefit his constituents and that he will help me to secure a direct rail link from Shrewsbury to London.

Lembit �pik: In normal circumstances I would criticise hon. Members who come late into a debate. However, as I happen to agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, I thank him for making the effort to come from his office to highlight the fact that cross-border rail links are important. For example, it is a shame that one cannot take a direct service from Aberystwyth to Euston, going through the constituency of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). I look forward to working with him to try to persuade politicians, rail providers and service providers that these links should be made available and that they should be bolder in running such services for rather longer to enable demand to increase. For example, I think that Virgin was premature in abandoning a service that had made it as far as Shrewsbury, only for it to be closed down.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman applaud the initiative linked to the powers in the Bill that allows the Welsh Assembly, with Arriva Trains and Network Rail, to reintroduce from the humble Llynfi line a train that from November will run all the way from Maesteg to Gloucester? That is the joined-up, cross-border thinking that we look forward to under the Bill.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman probably knows a little more about that service than I do. However, once the flow lines are in place, demand tends to follow. For so long, there has been under-investment in the British rail network and its services have been slashed. As a result, people have become accustomed to making journeys in a different way. I am encouraged that the Bill gives the Welsh Assembly the opportunity to make courageous decisions of the sort that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has described.
	On a local level, the more integrated approach that the Bill encourages and advocates is both welcome and necessary. Our vision should be of a co-ordinated network where bus and rail services complement rather than compete with one another, and where local authorities work together to increase efficiency and ease the burden of bureaucracy.
	An important omission in the Bill is that of accessibility. A report entitled Mind the Gap, produced by DisabilityLeonard Cheshirehighlighted the fact that many disabled people still experienced enormous problems accessing public transport. For example, nearly half of all the disabled people surveyed had found their choice of jobs restricted as a result of lack of accessibility to the transport that they needed to get to that employment. Nearly a quarter of those people had had to turn down a job offered because of a lack of accessible transport.
	Improving the accessibility of transport for disabled people means more than free bus passes. They must be able to get on and off the transport that is available to them. If there are only a few trains a day, they need to be able to board those trains. More progress is needed in that area. One omissionI criticise myself in this instanceis that we did not think sufficiently through disability discrimination legislation and its implications for Welsh transport. I hope that the Welsh Assembly will make good what we omitted.
	The Bill provides the framework to take Welsh transport forward. The hope is that the Government in Cardiff succeed where successive Westminster Governments have failed. Westminster Governments have shown themselves incapable of delivering a reliable and affordable public transport service. It is not integrated and it is not working well. The Assembly has the capacity to be more responsive to Welsh needs and to make the rail, bus and air system in Wales work. That system is not working so well in Britain. The Liberal Democrats have been grateful for the opportunity to discuss these matters. I hope that we shall be successful in convincing the doubting Conservatives of the benefits of a limited air network in Wales, and that there can be optimism that the Assembly will run with the powers that the Bill confers.

Si�n James: I welcome the opportunity to support the Bill's Third Reading. We know that transport to, from and within Wales is extremely important. We must ensure that we are never at the end of the line in any way, shape or form. We must be at the forefront of all forms of transport and ensure that they are of the highest quality for the citizens of Wales.
	The coherent set of powers that the Bill will provide for us will ensure a positive future. It will be a future where all forms of transport can become integrated. That will enable us to achieve many of the things that we all want from our rail passenger, bus transport and air services. We want sustainability; we want to achieve modal shift; and we want to get people back into using public transport. We want to make sure that more freight uses various forms of freight transport. We must make sure that we compete not only in Wales but in the UK and Europe. We therefore need consistent services, and we must achieve the best transport services possible.
	Those opportunities are much needed in Wales. The Bill makes provision for joint transport authorities and adopts a regional approach. People can therefore identify what is required locally to meet their daily needs. The National Assembly for Wales will provide a flexible public transport service that will plug the gaps, and that will depend on joint working on local transport plans.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill could lead to much more joined-up bus networks, which are sorely needed in the valleys and her constituency of Swansea, East? Getting local authorities and bus providers to work together across valley tops is vital for job creation if nothing else.

Si�n James: I agree. We are already working together in Swansea, East and west Wales on projects such as SWWITCHthe South West Wales integrated transport consortiumto achieve that modal service.
	On air transport, please forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for mentioning Catherine Zeta Jones again, but she is a great supporter of local airports. When she visits Swansea she always uses Fairwood airport, and is a great ambassador on our behalf all over the world. The consultation and worries about it across the border are important. The Bill, however, will improve transport provision and ensure that dialogue is always open. We need to talk Wales up and discuss what is achievable. We need to be at the forefront by establishing a public transport system that is the envy of the world. We can achieve that identity for Wales if we are able to talk up our services, and the Bill is the first step in that journey.

David Jones: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), I broadly welcome the Bill, but I have concerns about its implementation in the hands of the Welsh Assembly, which, in the years since its inception, has shown itself to be an increasingly acquisitive and centralising body.
	I have two primary concerns about the Bill. First, clause 5 provides for the establishment of joint transport authorities. The power to establish such authorities is permissive, not mandatory. The Minister was at pains on Second Reading to stress that the Assembly will not be obliged to implement the power conferred by the clause. However, once it is conferred, the Assembly may be tempted to exercise it as a matter of course, which would clearly be wrong. Local authorities throughout Wales are already working in collaboration through consortiums such as Taith in north Wales and SWWITCH in the south-west. The consortiums are mostly working effectively, so it would be regrettable if the Assembly usurped their functions without very good reason indeed.

Hywel Williams: Far be it from me to defend the Minister or anyone else but, if memory serves, I seem to recall that those powers are to be used when local voluntary arrangements have broken down or are not working satisfactorily rather than being something that the Welsh Assembly would use as a matter of course.

David Jones: That is not what the clause provides for. The power exists, and that might prove too much of a temptation for the Assembly. I mentioned my reservations on Second Reading, and I remain concerned that clause 10 contains powers for joint transport authorities to impose levies on local authorities. If those are imposed, they will filter through to council tax payers in the form of additional council tax. The establishment of a joint transport authority should be a last resort, and only if the Assembly is satisfied that, without it, it would not be possible to discharge the general transport duty set out in clause 1. I hope the Assembly will not do that without proper consultation and serious consideration of the views of local authorities and all other proper consultees.
	My second major concern relates to clause 11, which provides for financial assistance for air transport services starting or ending at airports in Wales. We have heard much about that this evening. It is clear from the debates on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, as well as the debate that has developed in the National Assembly, that the thrust of the clause is to help promote an intra-Wales air service, primarily between north and south Wales. That would be an expensive exercise and I must express severe reservations about it.
	There has been much discussion about the possibility of developing part of RAF Valley for commercial aviation services. The concern is that Valley is situated in one of the least populous areas of Wales, remote from large or even middle-sized centres of population. That is obviously a sensible place to locate a military airbase. I understand that at one time Valley had the second highest number of air movements in the whole of the UK, but it is not the logical place to site a commercial airport.
	Despite what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) says, the sad truth is that north-south air services have a history of failure, as I mentioned in my intervention on him. The Air Wales Liverpool-to-Cardiff service was launched amid much fanfare towards the end of 2003, and six weeks later it shut down, blaming a lower than average take-up rate.

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, though, that Valley would serve north-west Wales? North-east Wales is served by Manchester and Liverpool, so its needs are adequately served from the English side of the border, whereas there is no service available in north-west Wales.

David Jones: Yes, I agree. What the hon. Gentleman says supports my argument. If an established airport such as Liverpool, which has an existing infrastructure and which is much closer to the large centres of population in north Wales, cannot support a route between north and south Wales, it will be extremely difficult for a smaller airport such as Valley to support such a service.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) has produced figures that tend to indicate that the potential cost of subsidy in the first year of establishing Valley would be about 800,000. The likely capital cost of upgrade would be 400,000. That is a major subsidy from public money. The Assembly should be very careful before it commits public funds to such a heavy subsidy. It should do so only if it is entirely satisfied that there is a good commercial case for that. The people of Wales would be dismayed if that level of public subsidy ended up subsidising the movements of civil servants and politicians between north and south Wales.

Lembit �pik: Perhaps we are approaching consensus. If a business case can be made for investment in the infrastructure of an airport that would benefit a part of Wales, would the hon. Gentleman be sympathetic to it? Does he acknowledge that that is exactly what we have done in our analysis with regard to Welshpool airport, where a six-figure sum has been invested in the belief that sufficient economic benefit will accrue to the area to justify the expense?

David Jones: I have no objection to the provision of what the hon. Gentleman called pump-priming money. A reasonable business case could be made for that. My concern is that clause 11 potentially envisages an on-going public subsidy year on year. The people of Wales would resent that bitterly, particularly if it were primarily to subsidise the movement of politicians and civil servants between north and south Wales. That would be most regrettable.
	If the Bill is enacted, the Assembly will have to utilise the powers given by clause 11, and all the other powers, judiciously and sensibly. I hope that it will exercise those powers wisely and not simply continue the process of sucking up powers from local authorities and spending public money on projects that do not meet the needs of the people of Wales.

Stephen Crabb: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks about the Bill before it goes to the other place.
	In introducing the Bill to the House on Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Wales concluded by saying:
	A world-class transport system for Wales is vital to our future economic and social development.
	On that we can all agree. There has been widespread agreement and consensus on the aims of the Bill in our discussions on Second Reading and in Committee.
	Economic success, even in this age of iPods and e-boundaries, is still underpinned by high-quality transport networks that allow the safe, efficient and economical physical movement of people, goods and services. The Secretary of State went on to say that he believes that the Bill
	will enable the Assembly to deliver integrated transport for the whole of Wales.[Official Report, 16 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 420.]
	Last December, the Assembly's Minister for Economic Development and Transport, Andrew Davies, announced his 15-year transport review, saying that his proposals will create a fully integrated, effective and world-class transport infrastructure throughout the country. There are big claims and worthy aims coming from this House and from Cardiff bay on the subject of transport in Wales, but the principal question in my mind is to what extent the Bill will lead to a step change in the quality of the transport network affecting my constituents.
	Pembrokeshire is home to two ferry ports providing passenger and freight links to Ireland, and the fourth largest seaport in the UK. It is currently seeing the construction of two of the world's largest liquefied natural gas facilities. Pembrokeshire is one of Wales's premier tourist locations, and it lies on the strategic trans-European network linking Ireland to the European continent. Yet for all that, it has dismally poor transport connections. A train journey from Milford Haven to Cardiff can take the best part of three hours. I have spoken before about the serious need to upgrade the A40 west of St. Clears into Pembrokeshire; by that, I mean dualling. Pembrokeshire people therefore have every right to ask what the Bill will do fundamentally to alter the transport scenario that affects them. I hope that I am proved wrong, but I suspect that the answer that comes back will be pretty thin. I am happy to be made to look foolish on that.
	The backdrop to all the measures in the Bill, and the factor that will determine whether Wales is to have a truly world-class transport network, is investmentsignificant and strategic investment targeted at projects that will unlock wealth and opportunity. However, the fiscal outlook, with the Government's existing spending plans becoming less affordable by the day, means that such investment is unlikely to be forthcoming on anything like the scale that is needed. There is a danger that the Bill will give the Assembly new powers and responsibilities to create grand transport strategies on paper and allow it to create new bureaucratic arrangements for ensuring consistency across transport planning in Wales, while the transport plans become empty and meaningless because of a lack of funding and poor implementation.
	I turn to two of the concerns that I raised on Second Reading, which were dealt with to some extent in Committee. I suggested that clause 2 should place on the Assembly a clear duty to consult business organisations when drafting the transport strategy. I still think that that is important. Why should not the private sector be regarded as an equal stakeholder alongside the public sector in the drafting of a transport strategy? That does not mean trying to prescribe which specific organisations should be consulted. A broad duty could have been framed requiring the Assembly to consult organisations representing people carrying out business in Wales, as happens under other similar pieces of legislationfor example, the requirement on the Greater London Assembly to consult business.
	At a meeting with representatives of small businesses in my constituency 10 days ago, concern was again expressed about how seriously the Assembly engages the business community in genuine consultation. Road haulage and the wider freight sector were mentioned as examples of subjects about which the Assembly needs to improve its understanding. The Minister tried to give reassurances about that on Second Reading and in Committee but, ultimately, it will be out of his hands. I take the point that he made in Committee about the spirit of partnership in which the Assembly goes about consulting, but I would rather place my faith in a clear statutory duty than rely on the spirit of partnership.
	When the First Minister can come to Pembrokeshire, as he did several months ago, and question the economic case for dualling the A40 west of St. Clears, one has to wonder whether any genuine dialogue takes place with the business community outside Cardiff bay. Almost to a man and woman, the business community in Pembrokeshirenot only the road haulage sectorsupports dualling the A40. However, Andrew Davies's 15-year transport strategy disappointed Pembrokeshire's hopes, and no dualling is envisaged for at least 15 years.
	The other concern that I raised on Second Reading was the proposal to raise taxpayers' money to support

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we cannot have a repeat of Second Reading. We are now considering Third Reading.

Stephen Crabb: I apologise. Several people have expressed concern about the proposal to use taxpayers' money to support a daily air service between Anglesey and Cardiff. I shall not go into detail about that because it has been adequately covered. I was reassured by the recognition of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) that we need to move to a position not of continuous subsidy of an air service but of more strategic use of the money to invest in developing infrastructure and airport facilities. I would support that.
	I am slightly worried that some of the environmental questions that have been legitimately raised by organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Cymru and Friends of the Earth have been glossed over. No one has mentioned the principle of the polluter pays. It would be interesting to see how that fits into the context of subsidising air services. Ultimately, the air service will be small scale for high-value individuals, companies and public servants.
	I do not object to the notion of sensible transport planning at Assembly level. However, I am somewhat sceptical of the value of grand transport strategies on paper when there is no real investment stacked behind it. Hon. Members may remember the Prime Minister's declaring in his first annual report in 1998 that the integrated transport strategy for the UK was delivered. Delivering words on paper is all well and good but what matters for transport is funding, tough and correct choices of competing infrastructure projects and the ability to manage them ruthlessly to completion.
	I hope that my worries prove groundless and that the Bill, along with other measures, does exactly what its salesmen have claimed for it in the House.

Hywel Williams: I was glad to take part in the long, drawn-out and detailed consideration of the Bill, and I am equally glad to take part in the conclusion of its passage through this House.
	I have always been struck by a paradox about the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and his detailed consideration of border issues. I am a Welsh nationalist and a Welsh speaker from what could perhaps be termed the wild west of Wales, and he is an English Conservative and Unionist, yet he seems much more concerned about the border than me. Perhaps he will explain that to me later over some refreshment.

David Davies: In the Conservative and Unionist party, we believe that we are all part of one big happy family in one united country. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) is so concerned about what happens in Wales.

Hywel Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Earlier, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) prayed in aid his experiences on the train to London today. Such experiences have unfortunately sometimes made me into a driver rather than a reluctant passenger. One of my regrets, which was discussed with the Minister some time ago, is the specific exclusion from the Bill of mainline services from Wales to England. As I said then, people on both south Wales and north Wales routes use mainline services in Wales as local services. It is regrettable that those mainline services were not included.
	Historically, Wales has suffered great difficulties because of the lack of an integrated transport system and policy. The best transport links in Wales have always been built through Wales from east to west rather than directly serving the specific needs of the country. Obviously the A55 and the M4 are great engines of economic prosperity, but we now need to look beyond the narrow corridors around those two roads, and to plan and develop a variety of transport systems to serve the whole of Wales. I must note my disappointment at the spatial plan that has been produced for Wales, which also seems to restate a preference for those two corridors in the north and the south, apparently ignoring much of the middle of Wales.
	We need a system that will serve the transport needs of all the people of Wales in terms of the economy, social use, tourismthe latter has not been mentioned a great deal, but it is very important in my constituencyand agricultural requirements. The Bill goes a long way towards meeting those long-term aims, and it is very welcome. I hope that, when it is enacted, it will allow the National Assembly to co-ordinate and ensure consistency between all forms of public transport and, importantly, to make key improvements to the road systema point that I made in our earlier discussionsparticularly in deep rural areas and on the north-south road route.
	We also hope that the legislation will enable the continuation of improvements in freight rail use. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) referred to correspondence that he had had with the Tad Deiniol from Blaenau Ffestiniog. I have also had that correspondence. We look forward to improvements on the line between Blaenau Ffestiniog and Llandudno so that freight can be carried, as that would lead to great economic improvements in that constituency and elsewhere. I am glad that the Bill recognises the importance of cycling and making proper provision for pedestrians. The Government very graciously acted on suggestions on those issues when they were pointed out to them, which will result in a great improvement.
	Plaid Cymru welcomes the establishment of joint transport authorities, if and when there is a desire for them locally, and if the voluntary arrangements are not satisfactory. We are glad that the Government have agreed with the Welsh Affairs Committeeof which I continue to be a memberthat the majority of members of the joint transport authorities should be from local authorities. That was a well-made point, and I am glad that the Government have responded to it. However, as a past and present member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I have to say that it was disappointing to me personally that the Government refused to accept the Committee's recommendation that the transport commissioner's office be located in Wales. Perhaps we can take heart from the Government's assurance that that matter will be kept under review, and that the location of the office might be changed if there are further concerns about the accessibility of the commissioner in Wales.
	The Bill contains many good points. It represents a positive step forward and we certainly welcome it.

David Davies: I am grateful for this opportunity to add a brief comment to everything that has already been said. Before I do so, however, I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) that Conservative Members have always recognised the importance of an integrated transport system and have always realised that, without such a system, there will be no economic growth. That is why successive Secretaries of State for Wales under the previous Conservative Government did so much to link the valleys of south Wales to the M4, and the areas of north Wales to the A55. Those Secretaries of State for Wales embarked on a huge road-building programme that brought inward investment, jobs and prosperity to corners of the world that had long been forgotten by the socialist local authorities that controlled them

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the Third Reading of the Transport (Wales) Bill, not its history.

David Davies: I am grateful to you for reminding me of that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	It is because we recognise the importance of an integrated transport system that, when we started to consider the Bill, we sought to deal with it in a constructive fashion. We certainly support its overall objectives. However, there is a missed opportunity in clauses 3 and 4, because very little has been said about safety. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire briefly touched on the issue when he talked about the importance of international standards in aviation. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is also well aware that we must ensure that we have internationally recognised standards and that pilots are properly qualified. I feel very strongly about that, but I am not sure that we have adequately tackled the issue of road safety.

Mark Tami: What about caravans?

David Davies: I shall be more than happy to take interventions if anyone wants to discuss vehicles and what they tow behind them.
	Wales has a problem, in that many people who travel long distances have to do so using trunk roads rather than motorways. Many of those trunk roads go straight through towns and villages. Sometimes speed limits are in place, but there is not nearly enough enthusiasm for ensuring that they are enforced. It could almost be suggested that some people who work in the police force would rather concentrate on catching large numbers of people who have just broken the speed limit, in order to get more money, and that they are less interested in putting speed cameras up on less well-used trunk roads where the impact of speeding could be far more dangerous.

Mark Tami: I am somewhat confused about the hon. Gentleman's view of speed cameras. I saw a grimace on the faces of his colleagues when he mentioned them. Is he in favour of them or against them?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that, interesting though a discussion on speed cameras might be, it is not the subject of the Bill?

David Davies: I shall be happy to deal with that issue on a separate occasion.
	I would like to talk about safety, and about why it is not mentioned in clauses 3 and 4. The Minister should do more to ensure that speed limits are brought down on trunk roads that go through towns and villages. If I drive over the border from Wales into the Forest of Dean or into Herefordshire, I am immediately struck by the fact that I am expected to comply with a 30 mph speed limit every time I drive through a town. That simply does not happen in Wales. I have been told on good authority by no less a person than a previous Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government that one of the reasons for that is bureaucratic inertia, and that nobody can be bothered to sort out the paperwork required to reduce the speed limit on a trunk road from 60 or 70 mph to 30 mph. That simply is not good enough. There are 4,000 people dying on our roads across the whole of the United Kingdomas many as died in the tragedy of 11 September in New York. We must do more to reduce the number of preventable road deaths, and I see nothing in the Bill that will help to achieve that

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, on Third Reading, we are discussing not what should be in the Bill but what is in it.

David Davies: In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is probably not the moment for me to plead with the Minister to examine what is happening on the A449, but I hope to be able to do so on a future occasion.
	I shall end by saying that we need an integrated transport strategy, but if we do not have a transport strategy that is safe, it will not be worth a torn-up bus ticket.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Supreme Court (Northern Ireland)

That the Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 4) 2005 (S.R. (N.I.), 2005, No. 314), dated 26th June 2005, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.[Tony Cunningham.]
	Question agreed to.

Civil Contingencies

Ordered,
	That the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Contingency Planning) Regulations 2005, (S.I. 2042), dated 27th July 2005, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.[Tony Cunningham.]

POLICE (SOMERSET)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Tony Cunningham.]

Jeremy Browne: I have prepared a four-hour speech for the occasion and I am delighted to be able to deliver it in full to the Minister and everyone else who chooses to stay for the duration.
	On a more serious note, I am delighted to have secured a debate on the important issue of policing in Somerset. I start by paying tribute to the police in the county, and particularly to the chief superintendent of the basic command unit for my area, John Snell, and his team, with whom I have spent many hours on patrol in both Taunton and Wellingtonthe second town in my constituencyand also in the more rural communities. I have been impressed by their work and their commitment to their tasks.
	Many indicators of crime have fallen in Somerset in recent years. No doubt the Minister will give some of the statistics when he responds, but let me say, in a spirit of consensus and magnanimity, that I welcome many of the Government's initiatives on crime reduction. I do not want to talk entirely negatively about what the Government have done. I have a lot of time for what the Prime Minister calls the respect agenda: I think that it accords with many people's neighbourhood concerns. I have been impressed by the whole initiative of police community support officers and the role that they can play in areas such as mine, and I am keen to see their numbers increased. I can vouch for the fact that, as long as they are an additional resource rather than a substitute for the regular police, they will make a considerable contribution to the communities that I represent and to others further afield.
	The purpose of this debate is to take a slightly wider look at the situation in Somerset and across the Avon and Somerset force and, more specifically, to look at the changes in police structures in England and Wales. As all Members know, there are currently 43 police forces covering England and Wales, but the Government's drive is towards bigger regional police forces. On 19 September, responding to the report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, the Home Secretary said that we needed bigger forces, possibly even as big as regional forces, because of the
	modern threats we face today.
	He went on to identify three modern threats that are driving the agenda towards bigger and bigger police forces:
	terrorism, international drug and people traffickers, and financial crime gangs.
	Those are the driving forces determining police structures across England and Wales.
	On 16 September, Denis O'Connor of the HMIC had said in his report that a future policing environment would be characterised by
	widespread enterprising organised criminality, proliferating international terrorism and domestic extremism.
	The conclusion that he drew from that new threatthe modern threat described by the Home Secretarywas that
	below a certain size there simply is not a sufficient critical mass to provide the necessary sustainable level of protective services that the 21st century increasingly demands.
	He concluded that at least 4,000 officers were needed to respond to the so-called modern threats. According to the latest statistics relating to the 43 forces in England and Wales, only seven meet that criterion, although Avon and Somerset, the area that I represent, comes close with more than 3,000 officers.
	The argument throughout, both from the inspector in his formal report and from the Home Secretary in his response, is that bigger is better in policing in England and Wales. The logical conclusion is that we will move towards forces that are as big as regional police forces. There is even a riskI suppose some would regard it in those termsof going further and having a national police force. Rick Naylor from the Police Superintendents Association said that going down to 30 forces was not sufficient and added:
	We want to see a single national police force.
	There is an agenda of greater centralisation and a reduction in police forces.
	The problem for people in the part of Somerset that I represent is that the Government seem to be entirely driven by an urban-centric model for policing. Ministers are based most of the week in London. Most Home Office Ministers represent constituencies in big urban conurbations, including the Minister who is present today. Home Office advisers are predominantly based in London. The leading police officers tend to be the chief constables of the big urban metropolitan police forces. The drive from the Home Office and the Government is towards seeing policing through urban perspectives.
	What the Government describe as the modern threatsterrorism, people trafficking, drug smugglingare, of course, important; I do not diminish the importance of those subjects. They would occupy anyone who was Home Secretary, or a Minister in the Home Office, but they are urban considerations. They are the considerations predominantly of people in London, Manchester, Birmingham and even Bristol, the other part of the area that I represent. However, they are notthis is my essential pointthe key priorities of people living in Somerset.
	Three issues are of particular concern to people in the area that I represent. As I say, terrorism is not among them, important though that is. The first is antisocial behaviour. People want more to be done about vandalism, graffiti, late night noise and unruly children in their estates. That is not just a big city issue. It is as much a medium and small town issue; it is even a village issue.
	The second issue is binge drinking and all its associated problems. A good number of middle-aged people whom I have met in Taunton, which is after all the county town for Somerset, have said, I am not going into Taunton after seven or eight o'clock in the evening. During the day, it is thronging with people of all ages but in the evening the streets clear and fill up again at seven or eight. I am 35 and, if I go out for a drink in Taunton town centre, I am often the oldest person in the town centre at that time. That is a big problem to do with quality of life. It may sometimes be a perception problem rather than a reality problem. None the less, it is a big priority for people in my area.
	The third issue is visible community policing. Particularly in rural areas, people want to see police on the beat, on foot or on a bike. That is why community support officers are making a genuine contribution.
	Those are the concerns of people in Somerset. They are not the ones that the Home Secretary lists: terrorism, international drug and people traffickers and financial crime gangs. We are fortunate that we do not suffer as much from those problems as people in big cities do, but those are the things that are driving the Home Office agenda. It is becoming a bigger, more remote and less accountable agenda of bigger, more remote and less accountable police forces.
	Like so many of the Government's arrangements, the drive is towards heavily centralised services. When the Home Office looks at priorities for policing and at setting targets for police officers to meet, it tends to focus on burglary, car crime, street crime or robbery. All those are laudable targets but, again, they are relevant most to urban areas. In Somerset, in a typical week, there are perhaps three or four robberies. Robbery is an unusual crime in an area such as Somerset. In Bristol, there are about 50 robberies a week. I make the point because any police officer in a senior position looking to meet Government targets and to respond to the approach laid down for him or her by the Home Office will inevitably target their resources where they can have the biggest impact on those targets, and on those crimes that are designated as being most important by Ministers in cities making those decisions. Rural communities such as Somerset have a different agenda and a different set-up. I have talked about the areas of greatest concern to people in my area, but there are obviously less densely populated communities in Somerset than in the big cities and the population is generally older. There is a greater emphasis on reducing the fear of crime and on quality-of-life issues. There are fewer terrible crimes, but they are harder to measure and different from the urban agenda.
	It is a common misconception that the police deal predominantly with crime. That sounds like a strange statement to make, but my understanding is that my local police spend as little as 20 per cent. of their time directly dealing with crime. So much of their time is spent on traffic accidents, missing persons, floods, trees falling, animals escaping on to roads or, as happened on Saturday, a float catching fire at Taunton carnival. Rural communities see the police essentially as an additional resource and emergency service. That might mean making sure that an older person has the food they need if it snows heavily; it might mean taking home a 14-year-old girl who has had an argument with her boyfriend.
	Those are not necessarily the indicators that come out of the Home Office, which tends to see crime in very urban forms, but they are important to people living in rural communities such as Somerset. This agenda is particularly pertinent because, over the last three years, people in Somerset have paid more and more for their policing services. The police precept in Somerset, the third part of the council tax bill, has gone up by more than 50 per cent. in the last three years, which by any standards is an enormous increase. People are entitled to see that money being spent on the crime priorities in their community.
	There is considerable unease in Somerset about the current Avon and Somerset force, which merges the predominantly rural county of Somerset with the biggest city in the region, Bristol. When people call Taunton police station with a problem, they get put through to an operator on the outskirts of Bristol. I rang Taunton police station to apologise for being 10 or 15 minutes late for a meeting but was unable to persuade the person on the switchboard 50 miles away, who was not aware of the circumstances of the police station, to put me through. Now, Taunton police station is closing at night, which is not a reflection of the priorities of my area.
	We have what is essentially an artificial construct: a big city, Bristol, sharing a police force with Somerset. There is a case for giving Somerset its own police force that can deal with the priorities of the people living in the county, but I accept that that is not where the debate stands. The move of the Government is not towards more police forces, but fewer. If Somerset were to be merged with another area and we were to start from scratch, there is a strong case for it being amalgamated with Dorset, a similar, largely rural county with some medium-sized towns, rather than a big city such as Bristol.
	We can have such discussions, but I am certain that what is not in Somerset's interests is a huge, monolithic regional police construct, designed to combat urban crime. I want to see policing in my area that is more responsive, more accountable and less remote.

David Laws: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech, all of which I agree with. Does he agree that, if the Government go for a big reorganisation of police forces in our region, there is a risk that that could distract attention and divert resources away from bearing down on crime, which has happened very impressively over the last couple of years in Somerset?

Jeremy Browne: Real improvements have been made in tackling crime in Somerset. I have been impressed by the calibre of the police officers in my area, and I am sure that the same is true of the Yeovil area. I do not start from the assumption that everything is going wrong; what I want to ensure is that things continue to go right. My fear is that, if our approach to crime is driven by the urban model of a big city such as Bristolor, worse still, by that of a regional force in, say, Swindonwe will fail to reflect the concerns of people on the ground in Somerset. After all, why should Somerset's policing priorities be driven by Home Office targets set in London? Why should the Government shape our police force to address urban crime priorities at the expense of rural ones? Why should policing in Somerset be directed from a big city remote from the population of the area that I represent, instead of by that area itself?
	The people best placed to determine Somerset's policing priorities are the people of Somerset. They include Somerset's police and its directly elected politicians, and, most of all, its taxpayers, who are paying far more than ever for their policing. The Government's agenda is based on the belief that bigger is betteran approach that we see throughout the delivery of public services. But in policing, such an approach leads to too much emphasis on urban crime and to services that are too remote. The people of Somerset deserve to have their police taxes spent on their policing priorities. They tell me that they want strong community policing that is accountable, responsive and relevant to local needs.

David Heath: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) on securing his first Adjournment debate. It is on what I consider, for obvious reasons, an extremely important subject, and the points that he made were extremely apposite not only to his constituency, but to mine and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton pointed out that Avon and Somerset is in some ways a strange construct. I know of no other police authority area that goes from one extreme to the other within its boundaries. Ours goes from the extremes of some ultimate inner-city areasSt. Paul's in Bristol, for instanceto the wild and woolly parts of Exmoor, in his constituency, and parts of the levels, in my constituency. The latter are the absolute antithesis of inner-city Bristol, which is itself a major crime city, as we recognise.
	I have perhaps been involved with this issue for too long not to point out that the difficulty for any chief constable is that policing a conurbation such as Bristol is a real issue. Bristol is a major motor for crime not just within the confines of the city, but across the wider area. The drugs trade, which in Bristol and the neighbouring cities is linked to organised crime, is a major factor that any chief constable has to address. I understand perfectly well that petty and smaller-scale crime in Somerset is often fought on the streets of inner-city Bristol by dealing with the prevalence of the illegal drug tradethe motor for such crimewhich is responsible for thefts and burglaries outside the city area.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton eloquently pointed out, although people who live in the smaller towns in Somersetand particularly in the rural areasaccept, as I do, the significance of that issue, they also want a minimum level of policing of their own areas. It seems to themsometimes accurately and sometimes notthat there is a flight of criminal justice system resources away from rural areas and towards the cities, and that that flight puts them at a disadvantage.
	I have spoken on Home Office matters on my party's behalf for some time, so I have been involved in the national debate on this issue. I have taken the viewit is also my party's viewthat we have reached the point where we should recognise that there is a level of crime, international and national, that needs to be dealt with using resources that go beyond the area of an individual force. We would have liked the Serious Organised Crime Agency to have wider powers than are currently envisaged to deal with serious crime across the piece, so that chief constables can focus their attentions on local crime and on keeping the peace in rural areas and small towns, which is an important part of policing that is not often mentioned. I understand exactly the point made by my hon. Friend about the palpable similarities between Somerset and Dorset in that respect. Had we been starting with a blank piece of paper, we might have arrived at a much better construct for policing. We do not start from that, however, and I also agree that I do not want the police to be distracted by large-scale reorganisationother than perhaps in relation to dealing with national and international crime in a different wayfrom the things that they are beginning to address properly in our area.
	I believe, and always have done, that the basic command unit is the most important element of policing. I have established, I hope, very good relations with Chief Superintendent Andy Marsh, based in Yeovil, who commands the district covering my constituency. I can see that the local focus that he and his colleagues provide is of immense importance.
	While the BCU is the basic building block of policing, for it to work effectively we need to consider global numbers of police officers. Many years ago, when I was chairman of Avon and Somerset police authorityI say this on every occasion that we discuss policing, but I will not stop saying itI went every year up to London, in the company of the then chief constable, David Shattock, to see the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), to say that we needed 200 to 300 more officers, and to be told that we could have none. We had a clear deficiency in manpower. My criticism of the Labour Government was that it took them a long time to react to that deficiency in Home Office spending and that they stuck for a long period to the previous Government's budgetary arrangements for policing. Over the past couple of years, that has changed, and I welcome it. We are seeing a few extra officers, but that is probably not equal to the public's demands to see many extra officers on their streets, as they imagine there are elsewhere.
	The other welcome element is the introduction of police community support officers, which we advocated some time ago, and we agree with the Government on their important role, while emphasising yet again that they must not be a substitute for the properly trained police officer in patrolling our streets. They are a supplement, not a replacement. My constituency has had several PCSOs, whom I welcome and have worked with, and they provide welcome reassurance to the public through a uniformed presence on the streets, but there is a limit to what they can do.
	Let me give the Minister an example. I had my advice surgery in Martock in my constituency on Saturday and, before I had even got into the market house in Martock, I was shown the damage that had been done the previous nightnot for the first but the umpteenth timeto what is called the pinnacle in Martock and the public conveniences there. Inevitably, as Martock is not a big place, a small group of antisocial youngsters who are determined to make their mark on the village are responsible. The PCSOs have been engaged and constructive, but as local people point out, there is a limit to what they can do if they do not have the support and back-up of a community beat officer working with them to make their presence felt in the village, as they do not have powers of arrest. All that they can do is talk to the miscreants. We need both elements: visible presence, along with the back-up of omnicompetent constables carrying out their proper role. What worries me is that we do not always have both those elements.
	I have argued for a long time that we must address what I call intelligent patrolensuring that police officers are seen in the right place at the right time in order to have the requisite deterrent effect. That sometimes means pub chucking out time, although if the Government have their way that is going to be a rather extended process in some of our communities. Pensions day activity is another area, which may also be disappearing under Government proposals. We need to deal with the needs of the community and ensure that they are policed in the right place at the right time.
	We must also reduce the number of abstractions from local policing to force or national duties so that people can be assured that when they are told that they have a community beat officer team, that team stays working in their area and does not disappear somewhere elseto Bristol airport, perhaps, if there is a terrorist threat a few months later. That is unacceptable to the people I represent in Somerset. We must also take steps to ensure that when we have enough police officerswe are not there yetthey are used in the most effective way. Sometimes, that means keeping them on the patch and ensuring that they have the facilities to do their job properly in rural areas.
	I have argued for many years about the police cells in Frome, which are perfectly proper police cells, but are not used because the necessary custody suite officers are not available. The consequence is that if a police officer makes an arrest in Frome on a Friday or Saturday night, they have to travel up to Bath or down to Yeovil to put the culprits in a cell. That amounts to a minimum of a 45-minute drive in each direction, so the officer is off the street for at least one and a half hours. A conscientious officer will often take the view that the arrest should not be made because he believes that losing a minimum of an hour and a half, plus the time necessary for booking in the offender, is irresponsible, resulting in inadequate cover for the area.
	Local magistrates courts are still under threat of closure and nothing we say to the Department for Constitutional Affairs seems to remove that threat. It is another problem that takes police officers out of their areas to accompany prisoners and provide evidence. Such demands take officers out of local communities, meaning that they cannot do their jobs properly.
	I had a useful meeting with our new chief constable, Colin Port and was impressed by what he told me. He recognised immediately that Avon and Somerset force did not perform as well as he would like it to. He also recognised the problems that can result from one bad contactperhaps when a member of the public tries to report a crime or support their local police. If people provide information to the police and no one gets back to them, or if they have reported a crime, and police are promised for the next day but do not arrive and no explanation is given, that can result in a serious loss of confidence in the police. That is likely to undermine not only that person's confidence, but that of everyone else he talks to in the following week or so. We need to deal with that serious problem.
	We need more officers in Avon and Somerset. We need them to be more locally based and we need them to perform in ways that are conducive to encouraging confidence among the local community. We need them to use their skills and powers in the most effective and efficient way, and we need the whole process of criminal justice in rural areas to be brought closer to the individual and to be seen to be effective. I fear that we are not yet there at the moment.

Paul Goggins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) on securing this important debate, and he has raised a number of important questions. Two of his hon. Friends were also able to participate, and I was grateful for the constructive way in which they approached the issues.
	The hon. Gentleman predicted that I would rehearse a number of impressive statistics about police numbers and crime falling in his area, and I shall not disappoint him. Those details are important, but I shall first reassure him, I hope, about the central theme of his and his constituents' concerns. He said three issues would concern his constituents above all othersantisocial behaviour, binge drinking and the need for visible policing. As he pointed out, I represent an urban constituency, but if I went out and about, as I do, and asked my constituents for their three issues of concern, many would name the same three. The context is different, and we need to understand the difference between policing a rural and an urban community, but many themes and concerns are broadly similar. I hope that that is of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman, although I have no doubt not fully persuaded him of the merits of the Home Office team, which perhaps has slightly more experience in urban areas. I assure him that we understand the issues.
	Overall, Avon and Somerset police has made significant progress over the past 12 months and continues to improve performance, largely owing to the hard work and professionalism of the officers and staff. Overall, crime is down 5 per cent. compared with the same period last year. Burglaries are down 14 per cent., and vehicle crime has dropped by an impressive 19 per cent. The hon. Gentleman argues, understandably and of course, from the perspective and for the interests of his own constituents, but the figures are encouraging, and specifically so for his area. The basic command units of Somerset East and West have higher sanction detection rates than the force overall, and Somerset East's should be particularly congratulated on its achievements in reducing burglary and vehicle crime by 29 per cent. and 27 per cent. respectively when compared with the same period last year.
	As those figures show, the force continues to make strong progress in reducing crime and in tackling issues of real concern to local communities. The fact that the force has been able to make those achievements reflects on the efforts and commitment of local officers and, as the hon. Gentleman was generous enough to acknowledge, on the considerable investment that the Government are making in the police service. On a like- for-like basis, expenditure on policing supported by Government grant across England and Wales has increased by 27 per cent. in real terms since 1997, which is a cash increase of 3.7 billion, from around 7 billion in 1997 to 10.7 billion in the current year.
	We have increased police numbers to record levels across England and Wales. Today, we have more than 141,000 police officers, which is 14,000 more than there were in 1997. We have more than 70,000 dedicated support staff. We also have 6,300 community support officers and are committed to increasing their numbers to 24,000 by 2008. As a first step towards that, last autumn we made available 50 million in new money to enable forces to recruit and retain 1,500 new community support officers.
	Avon and Somerset police has benefited from that investment. At March this year, the force had 3,384 police officers, which is 395 more than in 1997. The former chair of the police authority, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who told us that he used to come to argue for 200 or 300 more officers will be very pleased that that aspiration has become a reality following the investment that the Government are making. Avon and Somerset police also benefits from 144 community support officers and 396 special constables, which is an increase of 91 special constables over the figure of a year ago. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Taunton underline the important role that community support officers play. Yes, there are limits on their responsibilities, but they are very much part of the team and can make a considerable difference. The big increase in the number of special constables is an impressive reflection on the hon. Gentleman's constituents and those who wish to volunteer and make a contribution in that way.
	Avon and Somerset police has received its fair share of the resources available this year. It is receiving 170 million in general grants, an increase of 4.8 per cent. or 7.8 million over last year. That increase is significantly higher than the minimum increase of 3.75 per cent. that we guaranteed for all forces, and is well above police pay and inflation increases.
	On top of general grants, the force is continuing to benefit from a range of specific grants. Avon and Somerset is receiving around 14.7 million in specific grants and capital provision. The hon. Gentleman has expressed concerns that local police resources have been targeted primarily towards the Bristol area, perhaps unfairly in the view of his constituents. It is rightly a matter for the chief constable and the police authority to decide how best to deploy the available resources across the force area, taking account of local operational priorities. It is only fair to point out that the number of police officers covering the three Somerset basic command units has increased by almost 8 per cent., or 59 additional officers, since 2002, compared to an increase of just over 4 per cent., or 48 officers, for Bath and Bristol. Indeed, Somerset is comparatively well resourced overall, with 89 community support officers compared to 37 in Bath and Bristol.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that since 200001 we have made extra resources available specifically to enhance the accessibility and visibility of policing in areas with the most widespread populationsthe third of his three themes was high visibility for policing, and it is very important. Avon and Somerset is one of 31 shire forces that have benefited from the annual 30 million rural policing fund. Avon and Somerset currently receives some 1 million a year from the fund, which is money that can be spent entirely at local discretion to promote policing in more rural areas.
	I understand that Avon and Somerset has used its allocation to continue investment in, and to meet some of the ongoing costs of, the bobby van project, which provides extra security to vulnerable members of the community, especially those over 65, and victims of crime. The funds have also been used to help support the mobile police stations of the community support unit.
	The hon. Gentleman put the issue of structural reform of the police service at the heart of his speech. The Government believe that it is a crucial step towards ensuring that our police service is equipped to meet the threats posed by terrorism, serious and organised crime, and civil emergencies, as well as the other important priority of effective neighbourhood policing. It is not a question of either/or, but of both. One must complement the other. We cannot deny that the horrific events of 7 July have raised the stakes and made it even more important to grasp the structural issue decisively. The Government cannot ignore the findings of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which concluded, in a report published last month and to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that the 43 force structure is
	no longer fit for purpose.

David Laws: It is understood that the position of some of the small forces may be affected by the review, but can the Minister say specifically whether the Avon and Somerset force is too small at present?

Paul Goggins: I shall come on to those issues, although I shall not say this evening whether I think that the Avon and Somerset force is too big or too small. We are placing the emphasis of the development of the new map of the force structure in the hands of local police authorities and others, so people at the local level can come forward with what they regard as a workable structure. Towards the end of the year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will form his conclusions on the specific proposals. I will say something relevant to the hon. Gentleman's question in just a moment.
	It is important to emphasise that the proposal for structural change and the specific issues raised by the review are ones determined not by Ministers and officials in the Home Office in Marsham street, however remote that may appear to be, but by the Home Secretary's independent, professional advisers on policing matters. HMIC's report Closing the Gap is the product of a detailed examination of the capacity and capability of all 43 forces to provide key protective services to national standards. We owe it to the public to ensure that all forces have sufficient capacity and resilience to counter terrorism and domestic extremism, to tackle serious organised crime, to undertake major murder investigations and to respond to public order incidents and civil emergencies.
	In light of HMIC's conclusions, no responsible Government could fail to act, but as the inspectorate has made clear, this is not simply an exercise in redrawing boundaries on a map; in restructuring the organisation of the police service in England and Wales we need to reconfigure how services are provided. I know that the response of some to the HMIC report has been to ask, as the hon. Member for Taunton did, What about local policing? The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question; it is a legitimate and important one. I put it to him that far from undermining local policing, restructuring is essential if we are to underpin neighbourhood policing.
	The clear message from HMIC is that the demands now placed on forces by what are called level 2 threatsthose of terrorism, serious organised crime and so onare growing and, if nothing is done, will increasingly draw resources away from neighbourhood policing. HMIC found in its review that smaller forces are less likely to be able to cope with those demands and more likely to be swamped when a crisis occurs. Larger, more strategic forces will protect neighbourhood policing by ensuring that forces have the resilience to tackle crimes at all levels, minimising the need to take officers away from their important neighbourhood duties.
	HMIC looked at a number of options for restructuring, but concluded that the creation of strategic forces with at least 4,000 officers or 6,000 staff offered the best business solution. Given that threshold, it seems highly unlikely that a stand-alone Somerset forceI know that the hon. Gentleman argued for such a force in his maiden speechwould meet the requirements. The Home Secretary has made it clear that he has no blueprint for forcing amalgamations; the initiative for the reform should be and is being driven locally by people who know their communities and the challenges faced by policing in each area.
	The Home Secretary has asked all forces and police authorities to submit proposals for restructuring by the end of December. The local discussion of the options will be informed by the design criteria set out in the HMIC report, including such matters as size, geography, coterminosity with partner agencies, criminal markets and identity. The Home Secretary has made it clear that to minimise disruption the proposals should not subdivide an existing force between two or more new forces. There would therefore need to be exceptionally strong reasons in favour of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of a Somerset and Dorset force, as that would mean subdividing existing forces.
	Irrespective of whatever restructuring happens at force level, for most people the priorities of policing are and will remain, as the hon. Gentleman made plain in his speech, the local park, the town centre, the neighbourhood and the community. The Government and the police service recognise that and we are working hand in hand with the Association of Chief Police Officers to roll out accessible and responsive neighbourhood policing across all forces, including the hon. Gentleman's, by 2008. We want every community to benefit from dedicated, accessible and visible neighbourhood policing teams, led by police officers, but involving special constables, community support officers, volunteers, neighbourhood wardens, the security industry and others, and for communities to know who their local police officers are and how to contact them.
	We see neighbourhood policing as the key to ensuring that mainstream local policing services are driven by neighbourhood and community needs, so that the people who are affected by problems of crime and disorder, and who are often best placed to find solutions that are right for their own area, have a real say in setting priorities. Neighbourhood policing is the principal focus of our policing agendausing local knowledge and intelligence from local people to target crime hot spots and the disorder problems that cause local communities the most concern. Effective neighbourhood policing is about making a difference to people's quality of life. It will empower communities to have a real say in local policing issues and in setting local priorities. They will know who their local police officers are and how to contact them, and know, too, how well their police are doing locally in tackling crime and antisocial behaviour.
	Neighbourhood policing means becoming more effective at crime reduction by working directly with local communities. It is about recognising that policing will be effective only when it is performed as a shared undertaking, not only on behalf of the public, but with the public. The public are more than users of services: they are stakeholders and they should be shapers of the way in which their neighbourhoods are policed. Our goal is a police service that is enabled to provide strong, planned, forward-looking protective services, based on the basic command unit structure, which is at the heart of local policing and which remains the key platform for the delivery of services.
	The hon. Member for Taunton emphasised his concern about binge drinking and he has discussed elsewhere alcohol-related crime. With his constituent, John McClintock, he has championed the use of shatterproof glass in pubs in the area. I congratulate both Mr. McClintock and the hon. Gentleman on their success in that respect. I hope that they are satisfied that the new powers that will be rolled out under the Licensing Act 2003 and the measures that we propose in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill will give their local police force an even greater capacity to tackle that issue and defeat those who, often fuelled by alcohol, cause mayhem in our communities.
	I acknowledge that crime remains too high in all our constituencies, but that is precisely why the Government have embarked on their ambitious reform agenda to help the police to focus on their key tasks and to work alongside local people as partners in building safer communities. I believe that that approach will benefit all our constituents, not least those of the hon. Member for Taunton.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Seven o'clock.